Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheREALCableGuy/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


TheREALCableGuy

TheREALCableGuy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
06 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Proven sock puppet of TheREALCableGuy. Hghyux (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I wasn't logged on into my account when I did some editing, and I did it on one of my family members computer, as opposed to my computer (in which my account is currently logged on to). And for the record, my IP address 108.94.64.243 is associated with my internet service, as well as my user account. Guess I forgot to log on into my account when I switched computers. Please do not block me again. Thank you. The REAL Cable Guy (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not buying it. The edits by the IP were mass blanking edits, two with 1,000 or more characters removed, other edits made the the user to television station pages are 500+ characters or more removed. This isn't a one time event, but going back to June 23, 2011 and hundreds of blanking edits. Requesting both accounts be blocked for disruptive editing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Deskana - You're... almost right. A CU cannot tie a named account to an IP, so a CU cannot be performed. On the other hand, you cannot prove an IP to be a sock of a named account without behavioral evidence, since you can't CU them. And I'm telling you this? Facepalm Facepalm Doc talk 10:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so: the filer claims it is "proven". You say that if it is proven, a CU is not needed, and add that it's a "puzzling request". I guess this means that it's "not proven", right? Instead of dismissing the request sarcastically: how about asking for evidence of proof? Since, of course, a CU is not needed... unless you could actually tie this IP to the named account if it were. Could you? Or is this just another frivolous report to be scoffed at? Doc talk 11:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the edit notice on this page states, "...the Clerks and CheckUsers do not have time to examine the history of the accounts from the beginning. You must therefore supply diffs and an explanation as to why the accounts may be connected. If you do not do so, your investigation may be summarily closed (and the request for CheckUser will certainly be declined). For assistance, please contact an SPI clerk". If the user cannot or does not wish to follow these instructions, then similarly I will not spend my time trying to encourage them to actually file their case properly. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's more like it! I've filed a few SPI's in my time here, and they are usually full of diffs, I can assure you (TLDR, many would say). I've always understood that revealing IP's of named accounts is a "no-no" per the privacy policy. Like when a long-standing editor's post is redacted because of "logged out, revealing IP". I suppose things have changed, and now we can directly (and officially) tie an IP address to a named account through CU. You live, you learn. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

I've just hardblocked the IP as they continued to vandalize; so short of running a CU, that might be one indication if the IP belongs to the user. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar editing patterns that show a possible link between the IP and User. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Per Jasper Deng's comment, I've declined the CU request. That being said, if you could provide diffs showing the two with similar editing patterns or other suspicious behavior, an admin might perform a DUCK block, which does not require a CU to be run. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, he isn't doing anything wrong. He is not a vandal nor a disruptive user nor a sockpuppeter. Enough is enough. Leave him alone and let him be.75.181.133.127 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fascinating how the edits of 75.181.133.127 fit right into the recent blocks of TheREALCableGuy.
      TheREALCableGuy, if you say you haven't done anything wrong, request an unblock and explain that. I assume Drmies is watching your talk page, he's a very reasonable person, if you can explain what went wrong then he will listen. By evading your block you are doing something wrong though. Please don't continue, it will only make the situation more difficult to resolve.
      Again, request an unblock with your named account. If there have been problematic edits, explain why they won't be a problem again in the future. See also WP:GAB.
      Amalthea 16:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Accused sockpuppet IP addresses that are suspected of being related to TheREALCableGuy. Checkuser could be used to see if the IPs are related. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • NOTE: I should have read more carefully--my comments apply to IP 152. I have no opinion on the other IP, other than that it is obviously another one used by CableGuy, and since it has been blocked (rightfully) it has not socked since my "final" warning explained below. Drmies (talk)

    Sorry, I don't see why this is necessary. IPs aren't connected to accounts anyway, and it is obvious that this is CableGuy. But see CableGuy's talk page: the IP has not made any article edits since there was a bit of a mess on CableGuy's talk page and I warned him that further screwing around would only lengthen his block. In other words, CableGuy knows and is complying with the block, despite the IP's edits to their own talk page (to remove the sock template), which I don't see how they would count as block evasion. Yeah, I'm sticking my neck out for CableGuy and it'll probably come back to bite me on the ass, but that's fine. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
29 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppet

user:TheREALCableGuy may be using user:Msw1002 to evade a block. Users have a common pattern of editing and of uploading orphaned images specifically to TV pages and focusing on Me-TV. Sore bluto (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not a sockpuppet of TheREALCableGuy. I do edit Me-TV pages as this one of my favorite channels and I enjoy keeping up with its channels growth. As you may note in "my contributions", I try to only add to the articles with sourced references such as directly from Me-TV or press releases from the station's themselves. As I know, unsourced references will be reverted with possible warnings. I add to other non-TV pages as well. Most of the images that I uploaded that were deleted, were done so at my request because the image was no longer needed (another user provided a better quality image, etc). I'm not sure what the issue was with the other user mentioned here, as I have not been warned about any edits I have made, until I saw this note about a possible link to sock puppetry. Which I am not that other person. Msw1002 (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that you even found this page, I don't think Sore bluto notified you?
Other than that, you are an established editor, here far longer than TheREALCableGuy, and have a much broader interest than TheREALCableGuy -- editing TV-related articles is not uncommon, and while there is an overlap at Me-TV, I wouldn't call that a focus. Amalthea 07:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is just poor timing, but I thought that looking into this situation would be the smart thing to do. I am just looking out for the best interest of the wiki. I will restore the Me-TV references in WDSU as soon as it is verified that it is broadcasting. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings or reputation. I would be very relieved if you aren't cable guy. Sore bluto (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting for others reference (despite being passed the mark for close) that I know Msw1002's edits as a long time editor and there's no way they share TRCG's editing traits at all (for one thing, they have no interest whatsoever in digital television infoboxes). Glad it's all cleared up, but if Msw was threatened with any kind of block there would've definitely been a a jump-in by me to stop a sanction against a good editor. Nate • (chatter) 10:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Per Amalthea's comments above, I'll mark for close. TNXMan 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I just found this user after casual browsing around some TV articles and I have a concern that this *could* be another account operated by CableGuy. I think this because In his contributions there is a clear interest in TV stations, and the user is mainly focusing on North Carolina stations, where CableGuy's sock IP addresses were Geolocated to [1]. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
I want to lean more on the cautious side though. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? To me, leaning on the cautious side means not blocking unless there is solid evidence to support a block. And as it stands now, you have not provided such evidence. Tiptoety talk 05:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tiptoety's comments, I'm marking this for more info. If there's none to provide, I'll mark for close later. TNXMan 13:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user has numerous contributions to Me-TV related articles during the period in which CableGuy was blocked. [2]. Contributions show a stop in editing in November, and a start again in March, the time that CableGuy was blocked. After CableGuy's IP addresses were blocked, then the contributions from Marshcrazy stopped. I think it is a very likely a sock. If it was registered earlier, then that means this was his original account. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional explanation. On the basis of the coincidental timings in account activity,  Endorsed by a checkuser. AGK [•] 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marshcrazy's last set of edits was in six spurts: 29-31 August 2010, 11-12 September 2010, 4 August 2011, 24 November 2011, 11 March 2012 (one single edit), and 25 March 2011 (five edits). None of those periods, with the exception of the last two (a total of six edit) coincide with CableGuy blocks. Spotchecking tells me that CableGuy is interested in channels, digital transmission, and content. Marshcrazy is interested in wattage and range, physical aspects. Note also how often Marshcrazy uses "haat" and "coordinates" in their edit summaries. [Why anyone would care for any of this, from both editors, is a mystery to me.]

    It seems to me that barring conclusive CU evidence we have to conclude that this is a coincidence: even with a CU "possible", there's no ducks here, IMO. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Possible. AGK [•] 22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does 'Possible' mean? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19 April 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Action has already been taken on the listed IP's, but adding this as part of the record for this user.

Checking the user's talk page, I noticed there were some image issues via template for orphaned images for WJZY and XHDTV-TV. I went to check them and they had been cleaned up already by 108.94, which raised some flags as it should be impossible for TRCG to even take action on them. Then looking through this diff on G4 (TV channel) and this one for The Cleveland Show, and then this diff on The Jeremy Kyle Show (U.S. TV series), it was obvious from TRCG's recent edit history on those three articles that there was IP evasion going on. I reported the issue to Kww, who recently issued a 6-month on TRCG for personal attacks in edit summaries and edit warning; the IP received a 72h block.

Shortly after Kww reverted 108.94's edits, and I applied a speedy tag to the WJZY image as we had a smaller fair-use image that met our policies. Immediately, 75.181 popped up to restore the larger image to WJZY and blank out the speedy, then edited at 2013 in American television. The IP's history suggested that it has been used often as an IP for TRCG and I flagged it as such. Drmies placed a one-month block on it, with Kww following with a month of account creation blocking.

All signs are obvious this is TheREALCableGuy editing under IP's, and actions have been taken, so no action to the IPs is needed and this is only for recording purposes, notwithstanding extended sanctions for TRCG for block evasion. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 04:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
14 May 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


TheREALCableGuy has a current six-month block outstanding, and shortly after the block as seen in the archive from the middle of last month, socked with two IPs I found that were quickly blocked, including TRCG's static IP. I had not noticed any unusual editing patterns from Macbookpro1990 to begin with, but the user's interest in the article WJZY (which is currently going through an affiliation switch process, along with WCCB), and Charlotte television in general (where TRCG hails from), along with network articles piqued my curiosity, and when I discovered Macbookpro1990's contrib history, I saw patterns of TRCG sticking out like a sore thumb.

Macbookpro1990 seems unnaturally versed on the sourcing and editing patterns held by TRCG on 2013 in American television, and also matches up to their unusual dislike of mention of cable channel positions which has not been supported by WP:TVS, which the user removed here, here, here and here. Macbookpro1990 also edits at G4 (TV channel), The Cleveland Show and Regular Show (season 4), where TRCG's conflict with editors regarding information additions earned them warnings, and has been belligerant, angered, hostile and not kind in edit summaries where sourced or unsourced information has been added, and shares TRCG's hate of the Parents Television Council as reliable counterpoint source, as seen here. Finally, in the same way TRCG refused to use their talk page whatsoever and blanked any warnings or suggestions, I have seen that Macbookpro1990 has also blanked warnings and suggestions without any comment.

As I have stated in the past, TRCG is a good editor, if they work with consensus and cooperate. However, they have refused to do so, and eventually had rolling blocks build up in length until they hit the current six month block. It is obvious to me that Macbookpro1990 is TRCG one in the same, and because of this, I must as for a longer block of TRCG if proven and a CheckUser of Macbookpro1990 because of their similar editing patterns, along with an extended block of 75.181.133.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as that block expires in five days. If proven, I also ask permission to roll back their edits as a sock, and for a much longer or indefinite sanction on TRCG, along with a block of their newest IP, if discovered. I will provide more patterns if needed, also. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 02:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to below) Thanks to you both for looking over things. I didn't want to have to do this and really wished TRCG came back in six months ready to collaborate, but they just didn't want to. Nate • (chatter) 04:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Nate dropped me a note about having reopened this SPI. I wouldn't mind trying out my new tool, mass rollback, but I think I'd like to hear from CU. Certainly it'd be worthwhile checking for sleepers. Shame that it had to come to this, as Nate pointed out above. If only the Cable Guy could use words in direct communication, we could figure something out, but they've proven to be incommunicado. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already did the block and mass rollback, as well as tagging the sockpuppet and extending the block on TheREALCableGuy to indefinite due to the constant block evasion.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't take prisoners, do you. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19 May 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Another obvious IP with all editing signs of TRCG (editing out digital television information without any type of consensus and blanking entire sections of articles), who has now evaded three times this week after the block of Macbookpro1990 and PersonWithoutRules (talk · contribs), who I brought to Drmies's attention without putting in a sock investigation. However, I feel a CheckUser is now warranted in order to get out any sleepers that might be held. I have been more than patient and would have been willing for TRCG to learn their lesson and resume editing in October, but its obvious now they will ignore all possible warnings. Nate • (chatter) 03:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

While I appreciate the desire for a sweep, it just isn't going to be of any benefit. Recently, TRCG has been bouncing all over Sprint PCS wireless IPs and this IP belongs to an Apple retail store (it appears to be the courtesy wireless afforded to their customers). He's just making edits on public networks of opportunity. I've started to semi-protect the targets of each wave of edits, and that's going to be the only effective strategy for now.—Kww(talk) 04:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

16 June 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Once again, an oddball name like all their other socks, and an interest in removing unsourced but probably truthful info on WCCB and WJZY, where they edited heavily, and another removal at List of Gravity Falls episodes, where they also edited. User also removed the orphan tag from a station logo image TRCG uploaded in the past after it was flagged on TRCG's talk page, behavior already seen in the past through another username just after their 6m was assessed. Nate • (chatter) 20:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Blocked and tagged.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

30 August 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Another 2 IP's with TRCG's usual hallmarks, including the editing of station digital television grids, a hate of E/I information needed to be listed in articles and concerns the usual concern about G4's zombie feed. The second had an edit war on Where on Earth Is Carmen Sandiego? over a source detailing how the show stayed educational, with 66.87.110.190 having the same edit war on Movies!. And 12.53.250.13 traces to Charlotte, with 66.87.108.206 being their usual aversion attempting Sprint phone/broadband stick. Nate • (chatter) 07:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
01 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


More socks, and it looks like a rangeblock might be needed in order to control what's coming off the 66 range, using a Sprint phone/broadband stick. Same behaviors as before, including removing sourced content from Movies! and 2014 in American television. Really thinking this is getting into AN-requested community ban territory, unfortunately. Nate • (chatter) 01:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
07 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

All interactions with suspected socks have occurred at WOIO over the last three days; all IP's fall in same range, and registered account was created shortly after community-imposed ban on User:TheREALCableGuy. All suspected sock edits are nearly identical to one another and to a currently blocked IP.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] All suspected sock edits followed edit from user who proposed community ban on TheREALCableGuy (Mrschimpf/"Nate"), almost as if suspected socks were following him. Request CheckUser for lone registered account to compare to confirmed socks of TheREALCableGuy -- Jacob21703 is almost certainly a sock of these anon IP's, and the anon IP's themselves follow REALCable's general pattern of block evasion. Levdr1lp / talk 14:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Those are not sock edits, this is my first time here. Jacob21703 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not really sure myself; they do have DTV heading edits, but a CU would definitely be needed to make sure. The IP edits are all using a Sprint broadband stick per usual so blocking would be useless/they moved on already. Nate • (chatter) 01:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
I've blocked the named account indefinitely, and 66.87.0.0/16 for 2 weeks. Hopefully that temporarily stops the problem, unless the user can get addresses outside of that range. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Looks like an account that slipped through the cracks. Lots of edits involving Charlotte television, digital television sections that don't meet their standards (including the removal of 'this channel is multiplexed lines that only bother them), along with several children's shows like in the past (though this round seems to be without the E-I/PTC/ACT hate of before), and several section blanks without comment on Regular Show S4, Legends of Chima and Lunatics: A Love Story. CU to see if they've managed to hop onto another Sprint node to avert the rangeblock. Nate • (chatter) 02:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]


22 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Looks like I may have found the IP used, editing naked on the same articles with the usual TRCG sigs, including Disney's One Too, qubo, UPN Kids, Kids' WB and America One removal of the FCC E/I requirement info. All edits rolled back; traceroute suggests a proxy bouncing from Warsaw using mooo.com, a 'dynamic DNS domain sharing project'. Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now said IP is trying to make this SPI into a profanity-laden mess, as seen below and in the edit linked. Nate • (chatter) 03:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again. Nate • (chatter) 03:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now jumped over to 187.109.171.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with this, but thankfully this page is now semi-protected from further interference. Nate • (chatter) 03:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]


23 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Another proxy restoring all the banned edits; all rolled back. Since they haven't edited in two hours it's likely this one's already been abandoned but I'm curious which proxy or "shared network" server they're using. Nate • (chatter) 04:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
23 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This IP reported Mrschimpf, who previous IP socks had undid the reverts of, at AIV for abuse, supposedly because he was accusing TheREALCableGuy of sockpuppetry when they weren't his edits. I know that's false, and I feel like we have another proxy here. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
27 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Yes, another one, now moving onto removing information about E/I from defunct kid's blocks, and taking a longtime editor to the AN/E board for justified reverts. Lashing out at those who revert, and telling a reverting editor explaining their reasoning that they're out of control. Nate • (chatter) 04:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

It's part of an anonymizing service named HOLA. Blocked 103.6.87.0/24 for one year. Probably TRCG, anyway.—Kww(talk) 06:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

30 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The latest round of shared and proxy IP's (including one that was blocked before) continuing to remove content from television station articles, and removing information about educational programming from Litton Entertainment-related articles. The new username also raises the same kinds of flags. Nate • (chatter) 20:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

information Administrator note I've blocked the account. Except for the 66 IP (that's stale), I blocked all the IPs. Elockid (Talk) 16:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24 October 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Two new IP's using Indian proxy servers to get in. All the usual signs; edit warring at List of Regular Show characters, content removal on television station articles, PTC reaction removal at It Hits the Fan and removing half the content of an article under the excuse of nonsense and gibberish that deserves a talk page fine-tuning which they can't get into anyways. Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First IP now solely for the record; got a two year rangeblock right after a AIV report. Nate • (chatter) 00:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
30 November 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User repeating unexplained content removal previously attributed to now blocked puppets of this user. Dwpaul Talk 05:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]


30 November 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User repeating unexplained content removal previously attributed to now blocked puppets of this user. Dwpaul Talk 05:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Both CU requests declined as CU will not publicly disclose a connection between an IP and an account. NativeForeigner Talk 08:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

01 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Dwpaul Talk    01:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]


01 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Dwpaul Talk    19:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]


02 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Dwpaul Talk    18:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
24 January 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Return of the same patterns of this user many times before; removing suspected sockpuppet templates from talk pages after warning and cataloging (which means a high percentage they are indeed a sock), and using open proxies and the usual Sprint broadband stick with a dynamic IP to route around their block after the end of the latest Sprint rangeblock. The first uses a Japanese open proxy, with the second removing the required FCC E/I programming info line from TheCoolTV as done in the past; all edits since the beginning of the year outside of maintaining the affiliate list have been from Sprint IP's removing the FCC E/I line. Other edit by 153. was to remove rights maintenance info from " Nineteen Eighty-Four (film)", another TRCG sign. Nate • (chatter) 18:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
07 February 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Usual signs with the first IP, this time grabbed from Ontario, Canada to reduce suspicion, but removing the reflist on a notorious episode of South Park and the appropriate reference to the Parents Television Council are definite signs this is TRCG, along with removal of DTV info on WFUT-DT, removing a good source on Justin Bieber's Canadian lawyer, and the usual E/I section exclusion on Vortexx.

IP #2 from Serbia shouldn't really have an interest in editing Charlotte television stations that TRCG edited often, suggesting an open proxy. #3 making an American television station removal and another edit an old American independent film studio doesn't really suggest normal edits for an Afghanastani IP. Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
10 April 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Adding for reference only. @CUs using these socks as comparison, please contact me for full details. Elockid (Talk) 21:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


10 April 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Seems like a duck to me. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Thanks. Looks like Nawlin took care of it. Elockid (Talk) 22:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same old signs they've had in the past with their usual targets, including G4 (TV channel), Regular Show, DTV info on WAXN-TV, and the usual 'E/I shouldn't exist' nonsense on One Magnificent Morning, The CW Plus and 2014 in American television. Also probable open proxy range needing a block as I doubt anyone in Greece (where this IP block comes from) cares this much about American children's television. Nate • (chatter) 02:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The third IP is an Egyptian open proxy again trying to remove sourced E/I info from the OMM article. The fourth is another IP from Luxembourg. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
28 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Multiple IPs removing the same information from the infobox repeatedly at WJRT-TV.

And then followed me over to KCET*152.43.46.160 And another IP:

I previously attempted to discuss the matter on the talk page with the shifting IP editor(s). I was advised by Nate that the editor then was most likely TheREALCableGuy as IPs. Spshu (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Checkuser note: We won't be linking IPs to any username, sorry; however, I will note that these IPs do not all geolocate to the same place. The better solution in this situation is to semi-protect the article(s) involved, which I believe has already been done. Risker (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the IPs are active in the past 15 days, except for 152.43.46.160, which could/should eventually be blocked directly if edit warring continues. I have SPP'ed WJRT-TV for 2 months ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
01 April 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This report is for reporting purposes only, as the entire IPV6 range was blocked this morning by Elockid (talk · contribs) for six months after ceaseless TRCG-style vandalism on Family Guy articles, along with harassment on my talk page after reversion and the various vandalism reporting forums like AIV, RFP and ANI. 152.43.46.160 from Central Piedmont Community College earned a three-month school block (effectively until September) for being a repeat offender. They were lucky for a bit to get an IPV6 range from AT&T, but as long as they keep letting the six-month amnesty expire with vandalism, we won't be inclined to end the community ban and extend TRCG a standard offer. Nate • (chatter) 16:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

18 April 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP corresponds to Charlotte; showing past signs of WP:OWN on Charlotte television station articles by asserting certain items in articles are against their wishes. Behavior of editing definitely doesn't suggest newbie with sudden interest in local television. Nate • (chatter) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheREALCableGuy/Archive&oldid=1136067991"