Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spicy (talk | contribs) at 00:47, 4 May 2022 (Comment (using spihelper.js)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Showbiz826

Showbiz826 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Showbiz826/Archive.

This SPI case may involve cross-wiki abuse. Please consider reporting the results on Meta; checkusers can send an email to the interwiki checkuser mailing list if required.

06 April 2022

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Frank Springer (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

1. Account created after last account blocked in SPI
2. vs Same edits. The new sock takes up from the last blocked sock.
3. Edit warring on Rajput Dynasty articles, just like last sock.
4. Cricket articles, just like last SPI.
5. There are more similarities that I can see. Venkat TL (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

   Another Diff vs that I found.

   @RoySmith Thank you for checking. Aren't there any logged out comments by this user? In this comment he seems to be promoting himself.

   @Ravensfire has provided useful comment. I request a behavior investigation I am very confident this is Showbiz. Venkat TL (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

   Identifying logged-out comments would be tantamount to publicly linking an account with an IP, which I cannot do. I should clarify my disposition of this case, however. If I was sure this was going nowhere, I would have just closed it. Moving it to "checked" state implicitly means somebody (i.e. a SPI clerk or patrolling admin) needs to evaluate the behavioral evidence in view of my CU findings and make a final decision. I'll update my statement below to make that more clear. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

   @RoySmith thank you for explaining. I understand your position better now. Venkat TL (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• I haven't looked far enough into this user to offer any thoughts, but you can see lots of SB socks here - Talk:Rajput_resistance_to_Muslim_conquests. The 106.* edits are clearly from SB and match ranges they have used before. The edits from Special:Contributions/2409:4051:2000::/36 related to cricket or caste are also clearly SB. Some range blocks may be needed. Ravensfire (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The 106.* range is also acting up again on Rajput, for example claiming the article is one sided . Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No question the 106.78.41.0/24 range is Showbiz. See their edits here, pushing the Rajput identity is typical of SB. Ravensfire (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

User:LukeEmily, what do you think of possible IP-hopping by a Showbiz sock in the 106 range? Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Chariotrider555, very likely. here(Rajput Page) and here(PC page). Obviously not a new editor, very familiar with wikipedia rules and editing techniques. Anyway, waiting for his response after 24th April on the Rajput page to see if a quote is accurate or not since he said he is busy with family matters at the moment. Requesting that we postpone this discussion until that date. If the quote is not accurate, it will clarify a lot of doubts.LukeEmily (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• This case is basically stale, but I ran a check on Frank and compared to some CU logs (not an exhaustive review, just a few recent ones). Based on that, I'll say this looks  Unrelated, with the proviso that log scans like this are far from authoritative.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  PS, I've got some notes on this case which I can share with a clerk or admin, but don't want to post here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: could you share the notes with me by email? I have recently been involved (as admin) at Rajput and Prithviraj Chauhan and coming across this SPI I am, lets say, intrigued. Abecedare (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Blocked and tagged Having evaluated the behavioral evidence (not detailing it here), I agree that Frank Springer is a Showbiz826 sock. Also noting, again based on behavioral evidence, that the sockmaster has been editing from 106.66.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 106.78.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) IPs. I have blocked the named account and am open to semi/ECP-protecting the most affected articles, and/or partially-blocking the IP ranges from the respective talkpages; suggestions for pages that would benefit can be posted here or, once this report is archived, on my talkpage. Unless there is more to say or do, will mark this SPI as closed in a few hours. Abecedare (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
•  Global lock(s) requested, archiving. Spicy (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• SPI cases involving cross-wiki abuse
• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting archive