Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
The list is very long, I am requesting a rangeblock. I'm not sure if I'm going about this the right way, but I believe a rangeblock is in order to stop this ongoing problem, and a combination of analysis of the suspected and confirmed socks of this user, along with some checkuser evidence would probably be the way to determine exactly where to block. These are the suspected, although a great many of them admitted to it, so they are actually confirmed. These are the other confirmed socks, I believe some of them were already investigated with checkuser. As a non-admin, I'm more or less in the dark about exactly how rangeblocks are done, but clearly there is a serious problem here, and there is a definite pattern to the IP addresses used by this banned user. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed to evaluate rangeblocks. Mayalld (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Range blocks are out of question. This user uses multiple large ranges from Southbell. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
--Kanonkas : Talk 19:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
To check for additional socks of this user, ban info can be found here. Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bambifan101.
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Latest admitted sockpuppet of banned user; any other accounts lurking / blockable IPs? BencherliteTalk 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
In this edit, blocked user Madagascar Esape 2 Africa identifies himself as the Disney Vandal. Ofetenview (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the ((bannedmeansbanned)) tag from User:Madagascar Esape 2 Africa's talk page. I found it hard to imagine why anyone besides the blocked user himself would remove the tag.
No blocking action required: both users have already been indefinitely block for abusing multiple accounts. I posted here anyway because Black Kite already blocked the four main Bambifan101 IP ranges earlier today (prior to Ofetenview's edit) and I wanted to confirm whether Ofetenview was in fact a Bambifan101 sock.
--Rrburke(talk) 21:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: I think it's quite obvious that these users are socks of bambifan101. The IPs and accounts have already been blocked so I don't think a check is necessary here. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Synergy 19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Bernard the Brave created a hoax Disney article Mickey's Les Miserables and restored the Robin Hood (1973 film) article diff to the last version by Okapi7, who is already blocked as a Bambifan sock. The IP address 69.143.155.84 also partially restored some one of Okapi's edits on the Robin Hood article, and is making unsourced edits to various Disney articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Clerk declined The account and the IP seem to be very obvious, so a checkuser doesn't seem to be necessary. I've blocked the account indef and the IP for a week. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Possible Bambifan sock, but may be a copycat. Simple English slapped a rangeblock on the guy and earlier today, I blocked an anon IP which WHOIS said was from a Courtyard by Marriott in South Carolina. Possible range block here as well...?
Clerk note: Ranges blocked. — Jake Wartenberg 01:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: No evidence to indicate that this is Bambifan; it's just page blanking and the like. — Jake Wartenberg 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
This is getting really, really tedious having to deal with this individual. I suspect this is a "sleeper" account and an old one at that; he's using it to try and circumvent the blocks I placed against new users on his frequently targeted articles. I have further reason to believe he may be on the go and editing from various IPs in the southern US, possibly during a vacation. The use of CAPITAL LETTERS to emphasize a point on the talk page is suspect as well. Deleted contributions almost all revolve around similarities between Disney movies, another well-known MO.
Clerk endorsed I've added the checkuser request because I believe that's what PMDrive meant to ask for. Endorsing to clear out any further socks and to reblock any possible IPs. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No additional socks apparent, no potential for range blocks, I IP blocked the two IPs for a bit. --Versageek 02:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I believe this is a sock of User:Bambifan101 based on the Duck test. In the past, socks of the Disney Vandal have come to my talk page and asked for help with a Disney film article, such as this user. I looked at his contribs and all the edit summaries seem like their written in the same style as DV. His usual targets have all been locked and coincidentally he happened to pick an article that I just started working on and put at the top of my "To Do" list on my user page (since been erased).
Then when asked why he's contributing to an article on a film he's never seen, he brings up Bambifan. Cactusjump (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I've blocked the account since the username was just too similar to previously blocked socks. Given that this guy isn't afraid of creating sockpuppet farms, I'd like to request a check for any sleepers and whether or not the IP had been blocked before because of this individual.
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Edit summaries are typical of Bambifan, are his choice of edits. Created a page for Michelle Stacy as well as a local singer in his hometown of Mobile, AL.
I was alerted to this and I've blocked the "Cheetah Dash" account and protected the latest round of target articles. I've protected his "pets" for at least three months; other admins have slapped indef protection on other targets. The IP resolved to a provider in Saskatchewan and had only one bad edit, but I've blocked it for a week just in case. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
PS: It's time for another rangeblock IMO. Collateral damage would be a shame, but this little scourge simply won't give up. I'm definitely in favor of a formal complaint and I'll gladly offer testimony if it ever happens. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Nishkid's block only caught two other editors; one has never edited and the other has made one vandal edit, so we seem pretty safe. -- Avi (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Bambifan socks contributions same Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed. Standard check for sleepers/rangeblocks. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Tiptoety talk 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Actions by IP 74.230.35.77 (talk · contribs) in vigorously pursuing Jekyll1886 (talk · contribs) as a Bambifan101 (talk · contribs) sock is in keeping with previously reported Bambifan101 behavior. Jekyll1886 is already blocked as a Bambifan101 sock. CheckUser is requested to confirm 74.230.35.77 = Jekyll1886. Vicenarian (T · C) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Also requesting check for sleeper socks. Vicenarian (T · C) 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Some vacation. I checked in for a moment and the IP left word on my page re. the investigation. As usual, it's a Bell South shifting IP and I've blocked it for a year. I think there is more than sufficient reason to initiate a formal complaint to Bell South at this point. Back to attempting to vacation...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed - archives demonstrate that Bambifan activity comes with lots of sleepers, endorsed to check for them and to evaluate whether a 1 year block on a dynamic IP is appropriate. Nathan T 15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I've been patrolling some of the User:Bambifan101 target articles and I've found these two accounts editing much the same articles in much the same way. Lots of image copyvios, lots of edits to the article spaces on Disney movies and Australian television, no interaction with other users or acknowledgement of the concerns of others. I don't think it's Bambifan101 but a similar user; BF at least uses edit summaries and talk pages. This individual does not. I hear the unmistakable sound of quacking. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
For those that have been following the OckhamTheFox saga of proxy editing on The Fox and the Hound, this effort to persuade another editor to restore Bambifan101's edits is clear. This account is continuing to edit after an entire /16 was blocked at BellSouth, so a checkuser is required to see what additional blocks need be placed.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment after checkuser results: I'm amazed by the finding on Cody is Awesome! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and suggest we bear in mind that checkuser can't prove innocence any more than it can actually prove guilt. Blocking on behavioural evidence may (or may not) be premature, but vigilance is quite justified.—Kww(talk) 23:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed. Standard check for sleepers/rangeblocks. Enigmamsg 20:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked User:Ableblood369. Enigmamsg 20:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This is either yet another Bambifan101 sock or perhaps a Codyfinke sock. Either way, I am very suspicious of this account. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks as if a conclusion had already been reached and this account is unrelated. Sorry about the hassle; please disregard this request. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In which case, quack! Consider it blocked. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I haven't looked at the contributions fully, but as long as you're willing to take responsibility for your block, this case can be closed. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This edit.[[1]];Evidence submitted by Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here)
Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
These IP's are suspected of being used by banned user User:Bambifan101
These IP's are pretty close to one another, needing to see if the /24 range can be blocked for a while.
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Similarly-themed edits are being made on the Sleeping Beauty (1959 film) article.
Clerk note: Blocked and tagged. — Jake Wartenberg 23:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Femalesrule already a confirmed Bambifan101 sock - IPs making edits in a similar style and manner, and making attacks against User:AnmaFinotera and User:Momusufan, seeming to indicate it is the same editor, however new IPs are whoising to Canada so a new checkuser seems appropriate to see if it really is him or a "friend". Does seem to be claiming he is vacationing in Canada[4] but then also claims to be a friend of Bambifan101 later[5] Has also made several references to GRAWP and committed similar style vulgar edits in some of the vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Clerk declined — Jake Wartenberg 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: All set, then. — Jake Wartenberg 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Most recent rash of suspected Bambifan101 socks from the edits and reaction to discovery. Self-identified other socks with the Mamasasa socks. Need to confirm these are him and find the underlying IP range as he is again getting around range blocks, as well as find and block any remaining sleepers. Suspect he is now using multiple accounts to appear to be supporting himself and to have some act "good" by stopping his "bad", so then the good is AGFed and allowed more leeway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
All of these accounts, and the IP, are already blocked, and all of the obvious socks that I could see on these ranges are also blocked. I set a rather broad hard range-block to attempt to slow him down a bit, but I don't know how effective it will be. In any case, most of the other ranges either are too large with too little activity to justify rangeblocking at this point, or are just too busy to know whether a rangeblock would even be feasible. J.delanoygabsadds 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Per user creation log, I have reason to believe that banned user Bambifan101 may have obtained another account (this time, User:Grouch'sfunland). As indicated by that log, this account was created by User:Jihiuyigygyuhuhuuhuhu. That user had created several other accounts, all of which have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets; most of those sockpuppets were identified as belonging to Bambifan101. I'm now certain that User:Jihiuyigygyuhuhuuhuhu is itself a sockpuppet of Bambifan101, as I have noticed that User:Jihiuyigygyuhuhuuhuhu and User:Lighteningluster (an identified sockpuppet of Bambifan101) have both edited the Nose-picking article; in addition, I have noticed that this edit by User:Jihiuyigygyuhuhuuhuhu at that particular article explicitly made references to multiple Disney animated films. According to the block log, User:Jihiuyigygyuhuhuuhuhu still has account creation privileges even though that account has already been indefinitely blocked for a username policy violation. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: there is nothing in the logs regarding User:Grouch'sfunland. Perhaps the username was misspelled when putting it in? MuZemike 19:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Same edting pattern. Looks like Bambifan has found a new IP range Abce2|TalkSign 08:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I decided to file this under Bambifan101 because the contributions by both the user and IP above appear to follow the normal patterns used by that user. That being said I'm not sure a checkuser is required because the IP (currently active) appears to be taking off where Nvadertim7 (currently indef blocked) left off with the exact same edits and would fall under the duck test.Jamesofur (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Likely. No obvious unblocked sleepers. J.delanoygabsadds 22:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
PeterSymonds (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
New editor focusing almost exclusively on Disney articles. Among is first edits was to "helpfully" point out suspected Bambifan101 socks, and to revert supposed edits by the vandal. This is classic Bambifan101 behavior, to try to avoid detection by making multiple socks, one of which "outs" the others to make it seem like he is a "good" editor. Many of hits edits have been to revert/restore his preferred versions of articles, yet again, and he has already made efforts to approach most of the editors known for identifying Bambifan101 to show he is being helpful. Is also stating a preference for known Bambifan101 versions[7][8], while also "talking" to him or referencing him in edit summaries.[9][10][11] Check user needed to confirm both this sock and the ones he outed, and find the new batch of sleepers as he makes a lot at once. The accounts on two other wiki's that he has interwikied on his page are also knew, doing no actual edits there beyond making the user pages for wikilinking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 18:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed MuZemike 05:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to check on User:TimonandPumbaaFan. The MO is slightly different than the normal BambiFan sock and could use a check. Can we also get any results on Theworldrules, Scratte Lover, and the IPs? (Unless we should assume that they're unrelated.) MuZemike 18:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to check on another new set acting in tandem, and Movimationguy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Suddenly appearing editing a variety of Disney articles, including creating some new articles...-- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 04:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: Doesn't look like Scratte Lover is related, at least there isn't enough to go by. Marking as closed. MuZemike 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Latest set of named and IP socks; need new checkuser to find any sleepers and evaluate for new IP range block/s. 98.90x seems to be his current primary range. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 23:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
All named accounts are already blocked. However, given this user's history, I agree with Collectonian--a sweep is necessary to find any more socks in this guy's hamper. Blueboy96 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
All Confirmed (surprise). I blocked 98.90.0.0/16 for 6 months. Not much else to do here. J.delanoygabsadds 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
--Rrburke(talk) 03:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
See Defending yourself against claims.
Definite case of WP:DUCK, but given this individual's proclivity toward filling sock drawers, I feel a CU and possible rangeblock are warranted.
Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). No comment with respect to IP address(es).
There are no unblocked sleeper socks. J.delanoygabsadds 17:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I don't know what it's going to take to get this entire range blocked, but I'm willing to see. This has gone on for years and it has to stop.
See Defending yourself against claims.
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Very similar edits between the two accounts including [[15]], [[16]], [[17]] and [[18]] 5 albert square (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
If it can be done, I propose reblocking 70.146.192.0/18, (see block log). The block on that range expired last month. Momo san Gespräch 04:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Same edits to same pages, nothing else to really say. CU is required as this user is obviously able to evade their block, hence we need to see if a rangeblock is at all possible.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Beetlebrox (talk · contribs) uses the same rallying cry: "Teletubbies ATTACK!" on related pages. (Already blocked as vandal.) TheFeds 02:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
See Defending yourself against claims.
This account was just brought to my attention; it appears to be an old sleeper account given the earliest editing dates. I have reason to believe that Bambifan's IP has shut him down, but there still may be some sleepers lurking about given his tendency toward creating sockpuppet farms. He's probably editing from a relative's home, a school or other public terminal.
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Usual MO of edits, particularly around the Ice Age "4" thing. IP goes back to the same geographical location of other known range for this one. Requesting check user to find next set of sleepers and see if IP range block is possible. For extra fun, apparently he and Bambifan101 are now having sock edit wars over some articles! -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Depending on the relationship of the latter two with Bambifan, this request may need to be moved. -- Avi (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
From edits, appears to have found away around the multiple range blocks. Asking CheckUser to find the usual sleepers and new IP range for possibly blocking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This individual's ongoing pattern of abuse across multiple Wikimedia projects over a period of nearly four years recently resulted in the blocking of three BellSouth IP ranges and a school block for a period of one year. If this account was in fact created via a BellSouth IP or other proxy, the same should be done to this range as well.
See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed. Tim Song (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. I know, I know - Feel free to marvel at my 1337 h4x0r ch3kj00sah skilz :P I didn't find any new sleepers. IP blocked - blocked some new ranges. J.delanoygabsadds 05:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
User contribs seem to fit the usual modus operandi (make sure to review the deleted contribs, as well). Would just call it a WP:DUCK case, except that this puppetmaster is supposed to be rangeblocked. It's possible of course that there could be more.
See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed. Let's see if there are other socks in the drawer. Tim Song (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Next back that needs checking for sleepers and issued ones and to get the underlying IP to see if a range block is possible. He's getting around the previous ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed – First off, I'm not 100% certain on Showtooner. If it is confirmed, then a check into underlying IP/ranges would probably be worthwhile. –MuZemike 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: blocked and tagged, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Deleted talk page strongly suggests it's another drooling, pimple-pussed adolescent slithering by from ED; Bambifan101 is currently up against four full range blocks for one year plus the year-long block of his school IP. Still, given BF101's determination, I thought it best to report it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed probably found a new IP to edit from (so bear in mind that this may askew the results), would like to see if he has got any sleepers on that address and have it blocked (if sockpuppetry is confirmed), thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 12:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Another brand new editor whose only focus is Disney and Teletubbies article. Usual check user to find underlying IP, sleepers, and see about new range block. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I was just alerted to this and I blocked this latest attempt immediately. A range block is more than warranted. This individual is banned from any and all Wikimedia Foundation projects, at least four BellSouth IP ranges have been blocked for a year as well as his Mobile County (Alabama) school IP. In all the years I have been editing this site, I have never seen a more persistent and destructive vandal as this. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 01:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: Jmac3568 blocked and tagged by another admin. –MuZemike 01:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: all already blocked, since Jmac3568 was already blocked based on behavioral evidence there is no need for further action there. All accounts tagged appropriately. Thanks Avraham, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Latest one. Its already blocked but need check user to see if yet another IP range block is possible. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Another user just alerted me to this. I am going to go on record and state that some sort of formal action is long overdue on this. The Foundation needs to get serious or some good users are simply going to drop out of the project. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed typical MO, if a check could be performed for an under lying IP and sleepers that would be appreciated, regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
A few more nameds that just popped up. Usual IP check needed to make sure these aren't actually Alexcas11's socks since they also did some fake sequel pages; and, as usual, check for range block possibilities. -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 20:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed Auntie E. (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Yet another round *sigh* Usual check for sleepers and possible range blocks -- AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Five 0.0/24 rangeblocks, one blocked school IP and still this kid keeps on hitting the site. I would greatly appreciate being apprised of the situation since I have dialogue with Jimbo over this very matter. In fact, if the clerk who runs the CU would forward the info to Jimbo, I would appreciate it. He's agreed to file a formal complaint with BellSouth over this individual. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed for sleepers and underlying IP please. I'm assuming that when you said "if the clerk who runs the CU would forward the info to Jimbo, I would appreciate it" you meant the checkuser. Leaving it up to the reviewing checkuser to decide whether that would be appropriate. Also noting that if Wales wants to then he can do the check himself. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 10:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The person uses their iPhone sometimes. Short of blocking pretty much every iPhone, there's not an awful lot to be done. I didn't find anything, either way. If Jimbo needs technical evidence, he can check the accounts himself. There's not an awful lot of data there for him to sift through :-) --Deskana (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
King Punisher lists the names of six user accounts, all of them are socks except that three belong to a different family. Not sure if it's a coincidence, but it's better to be safe than sorry.
See Defending yourself against claims.
Rejected --Deskana (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
This AIV report from AnmaFinotera suggests that this is a duck of Bambifan due to this. Treylander 21:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Clerk declined. Fan of the Disney animation already confirmed sock of Alexcas11 with no sleepers found. Elockid (Talk) 02:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
See Defending yourself against claims.
A legit user who works on film-related articles alerted me to this AT&T IP out of Key West, Florida. Bambifan edits via AT&T out of Mobile, Alabama, but he's either on vacation or has figured out a way to use proxy servers. I'm reluctant to block the range since again, he may simply be visiting the area, got hold of a computer and started back in. The usual subjects, the usual style, the usual edit summaries. No question it's him.
Clerk declined The IP is blocked for a year and there's not a user to check against an IP. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Looks like he is either on vacation, or its out other socker, User:Alexcas11 spoofing again. Need usual round up of the sleepers and sorting out which is which. If CU shows any are Alexcas instead, please up their tags for easier -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added 76.199.170.159 (talk · contribs) based on
Hope this helps.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed 13NationalChampionshipsRTR (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = Bambifan101 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).
Unrelated Filmguy924 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).
I globally locked the confirmed account, and blocked an internet cafe that BF use to create his new account. No sleepers found. J.delanoygabsadds 02:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
See Defending yourself against claims.
User:AnmaFinotera is a favorite target of this vandal and where one Bambifan sock lies, more are sure to be lying in wait. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Inconclusive - mobile range. J.delanoygabsadds 05:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Normally, I would have written this off as just another kid who wandered onto ED and decided to try his hand at socking over here. However, the main account's first edits were to harass User:AnmaFinotera, a favorite Bambifan101 victim. Bambifan is a notorious sockpuppeteer and where there is one, there may well be more. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk declined They are already blocked so I don't see why a checkuser is necessary here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
It's painfully obvious that this is the same person, but I have a feeling that this is not Bambifan101. The alternate characters in the usernames tell me it's the drooling mutations from ED who have been doing a bit of research on pesky vandals and are copycatting and using the LTA page as a reference. Wouldn't take a genius to fake a Bambifan account. Bambifan's four BellSouth IPs and his Mobile County School District IP have been blocked for a year. However, if these have originated from BellSouth accounts in Mobile, Alabama - or any IP from the southeastern US - it likely is Bambifan and a rangeblock should be imposed. I should point out that I have one other reason to believe that this is not Bambifan, but I don't want to tip my hand. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
"Sigh" is right. This is why I am just about to slap a "retired" template on my page and concentrate more on some of my personal side projects. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 21:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
No sleepers. --Deskana (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This is the last freaking straw. Either he goes or I do, it's that simple. I have blocked four ranges and a school range and now the little son of a bitch is mocking us via a mobile network as was revealed on the last CU. I do not apologize for the obscenity; this ends here and now. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
That's what I thought; I can relax knowing you're on the job. :) I don't have enough time on Simple to qualify for adminship, sad to say. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
BOVINEBOY2008 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Requested unprot of Disney-related articles at WP:RPP, merely stating that he wished to edit them (a tactic he's attempted in the past). Requesting CU to see if there's any more Heartless hiding. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 01:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Found nothing of note. --Deskana (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This user has been deliberately adding false information and unnecessary categories to film articles. (examples are [23], [24], [25]). I already gave him warnings on his talk page for vandalism on articles and I reported it at AIV, but since that is probably a BF101 sock, I decided to post it here per an admin's recommendation. The IP is known to be Bambifan101 based on his constant additions of unneeded categories and incorrect information in the articles. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Per this report to ANI by Betty Logan (talk · contribs). A quick review by me of the whois as well as the contrib histories made it apparent that this is BF101. I have enacted 1month softblocks on all reported ip's, but am placing this here so a rangeblock may be considered and to see if there are any accounts not yet blocked. (ps. I don't do many of these reports, so please amend/repair as required) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
The range would have to be 98.85.5.24/17. There are a couple, I mean a couple good edits coming from this range. But almost a full majority of this range seems to been abusive, edits reverted or disruption within the past month or so. Elockid (Talk) 19:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The usual tired crap. See report at AN/I [26] - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC) - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Auto-generated every six hours.
See Defending yourself against claims.
I've not run a check, but I did re-instate the rangeblock that was placed last time. TNXMan 19:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Anon IP is targeting Disney articles, including those frequented by Bambifan. Edit histories include reverting changes claimed to be Bambifan vandalism (such as this and this), an editor a relatively new anon IP shouldn't know about. IP address geolocates to BellSouth in Mobile, Alabama, the last identifiable city where Bambifan may be located. McDoobAU93 03:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
See also IP 63.3.5.2 who is editing the same article about a book which barely registers as noteable. The IPs are both listed as "shared" and of course it is the same person. 63.3.5.3 became aggressive and rude when I questioned their "plot summaries." I would not have made the connection with Bambifan101, however, without noticing the "next door" 63.3.5.2 had undone my edits reverting 63.3.5.3 and the sockpuppetry case was mentioned on the talk page of 63.3.5.2[27] While the IPs could be used by another user why would they use two IPs linked to a sockpuppeteer? Why not get an account or have one created? Based on the arrogant behaviour and that IP 63.3.5.2 has been used by Bambifan101, I think it is Bambifan101. ALMOST a case of WP:DUCK. Probably thinks I'm too new here and too stupid to dig deeper. Think someone ought to take a look what is happening here anyways. —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Same types of edits, changing data on the film articles, particularly running times. Has used the 98.85.XXX.XXX range before. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Same types of edits, changing data on the film articles, particularly running times (see [28] for example). Has used the 98.85.XXX.XXX range many times before. Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
User has been disruptively editing articles in the same manner as seen in this user's contributions. They are most likely similar edits in nature and I feel that a checkuser is needed to confirm that he is indeed a sockpuppet of BF101 even though he is already blocked as a VOA per the ANI discussion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Additional info ... Soulessnake began undoing edits made by the 69.248 IP noted above. The anon IP noted was also editing Disney articles that are frequent Bambifan targets. I'm concerned that he was testing the defenses with the IP before creating a new account and beginning this latest attack. --McDoobAU93 04:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I think he's using a proxy or something. As far as the account is concerned, Philippe beat me to the block. –MuZemike 07:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This editor is only editing kids shows which leads me to think that this may be Bambifan. His username also shows that this user is around the same age as Bambifan. Island Monkey talk the talk 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
While Unrelated to Bambifan101, this does appear to be Frantzedward.cha (talk · contribs), who is blocked. TNXMan 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Same interests, same modus operandi. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Editor created account early on 8 October 2011 and first edits were to common BF101 targets The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under. Edits at the latter were primarily to revert the changes of an anon IP, listed above, which matches Bambifan's most recent M.O. of using unblocked IPs to create work for the new sock to revert, thus building up edit count to reach autoconfirmed status and the ability to bypass semi-protection at target articles. -- McDoobAU93 04:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. There is an LTA case at [29] that is supposed to be linked from any further SPI cases involving BambiFan101. Instructions are that the LTA page needs to be updated when this case is resolved. VanIsaacWScontribs 10:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
All accounts blocked, 12.171.79.130 is Confirmed by autoblock, as well as a global block. No opinion on 68.5.97.233. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Username is of the Bambi username string. 1966batfan (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Declined – There needs to be some more evidence besides that the account contains "Bambi" to be a suspected sock of Bambifan101. –MuZemike 07:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Procedural nominations based on the DQB's tag at WP:UAA: [30] [31]. First account's edits (to an Irish cartoon character's page) look potentially legit but the username combination does smell rather strongly of duck. Believe the second account is a false positive but added per the bot's tag for others to assess (could possibly be "establishing an alibi", as it were). The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Already blocked both. The first due to consistently adding unhelpful edits (per the IPs talk page). The second one would seem to be an obvious WP:DUCK. But since the block log of the first suggests that this is ongoing ban evasion, wanted to note it here, and requesting a checkuser to confirm. jc37 22:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This new user has only made one edit, however the one edit although not to the same articles is along the same lines as the sockpuppeteer, ie making unreferenced changes. That and the fact that a bot reported this to WP:UAA for the names being similar led me to raise this. Requesting checkuser to see if they are related and, given the sheer amount of previous accounts created by the sockpuppeteer, to see if there are any sleepers. 5 albert square (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk declined per previous CU comments that there needs to be more evidence than the "Bambi" commonality.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
IP user is targeting Disney film articles, notably The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under. IP geolocates to Mobile, Alabama, last known physical location connected to Bambifan101. McDoobAU93 01:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
64.28.48.0/20 soft-blocked for one month. Can't see that anything much more can be done.—Kww(talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Anon IP (currently blocked for vandalism) near Atlanta making "corrections" to Disney-related articles. Quack! See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101 -- Rrburke (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Range is reasonably small, so I have gone ahead and soft-blocked 24.131.32.0/20 for 6 months.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe Redcoyote18 is a sock of Bambifan101, who was banned for using tons of socks almost a year ago.
Redcoyote18 has been inserting false information on film articles for months. He has been changing films' runtime. From the real, sourced runtime, he will reduce that length down for about 5-10 mins to exclude the time credit rolls. Most of edits are small, no change in character count, but the numbers are changed and has been passing unnoticed. The diffs can be found here: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] He has been shortening the length of songs as well. In fact, anything on this contribution pages [38] are pretty much the same thing, although I have only enough knowledge and time to confirm that the edits above are false.
The behavior is consistent with Bambifan101 as reported here [39]. Other similar behavior can be found here [40] especially as reported by Betty Logan, which are similar to the user reported above.
However, I have no knowledge to confirm the accuracy of some edits such as [41] [42] [43] or [44], so I do not know whether the user made good faith but misinformed edits and is a different person, or the same banned user. Kindly consider CheckUser as appropriate. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Additional information: I'm told to include this report of Bambifan101 long term abuse: [45]
More info: IP 98.196.49.127 blanked the same article Redcoyote18 visited. The blanking were done in four edits; the total result is here [46]. From previous sockpuppet investigations like [47] and a few investigations onward, 98.196.49.127 falls into the similar range of IP used by Bambifan101. I think it's safe to assume that 98.196.49.127 is another IP used by Bambifan101, but whether this IP is the same is Redcoyote18 might require some looking into.
More info since last entry: Redcoyote18 has replied to the message I left on his talk page [48]. I don't know if anyone here is familiar with his vandalism or talking style, but I'm adding this for consideration. I will ask around for more information.
Update: Since I heard that Redcoyote18 is editing from geographically different location, I've done some homework about the talking style of Bambifan101, and asked whether Redcoyote18's matches. The opinions of users familiar with Bambifan101 can be found here [49] and [50]. I'm adding this for your consideration. Anthonydraco (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
A CU would be useful here; A) because if it's BF we need to IP block, and B) the behavior is subtly different here (other article classes than the "classic" Bambifan101 Disney targets, adding music articles and a new behavior pattern with the running time modifications). Either this is newly linked behavior of BF or it's someone else with another less catastrophically bad problem, in which case an indef block is not the right first response... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I saw this pop up not too long ago, and then decided it was time to register an opinion when Anthonydraco sought out assistance from a fellow "Bambi-hunter", Sjones23. In my opinion, this doesn't strike me as Bambifan101's normal behavior. It's not his normal targets, nor is it the changes he normally makes. Does this editor need some guidance in how things operate? Based on the response Anthonydraco got, I'd definitely say yes. The biggest thing that suggests this isn't BF101 is the geolocation of the IP - it doesn't match with either of Bambifan's last known physical locations (the Mobile, Alabama and Atlanta, Georgia areas). Bambi's folks could certainly have moved again, however. --McDoobAU93 16:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
IP is editing common BF101 target articles, including The Rescuers and, a recent target, Victorious. IP geolocates to Mobile, Alabama and has been blocked in past as BF101. Warnings from me on this page and two previous BF blocks make for very loud quacking. McDoobAU93 04:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Detailed in this LTA report, I'm thinking that more of his targeted articles need to be semi-protected to keep him from editing. The IP suspected has been blocked as a sock of Bambifan101 before, so It looks like a duck to me. Hto9950 19:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Checked an anon IP edit at The Rescuers, a common Bambifan target, on a hunch. Sure enough, this same IP has edits on other Disney film articles and also at Victorious, a new target for Bambifan. IP geolocates to Mobile, Alabama, current believed physical whereabouts of Bambifan. This is a clearly, loudly quacking duck. McDoobAU93 01:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
And here's the always eventual self-outing and "gloating". --McDoobAU93 16:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Per request made at WP:UAA. — This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Strange overlap of edits (regarding Et tu, Brute?, Administrators (Wikipedia) and Uiquipedia), plus clear evidence that these accounts are being operated by experienced users (e.g. Uiquipedia's second and third edits show knowledge of template use, FunctionNotationandRules jumped straight into redirects). I'm calling it as Bambifan101 because of this (admins only), but I could be mistaken. Requesting CU for confirmation and sleeper check. Yunshui 雲水 15:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
((endorse}] Self-endorsing for CU. Yunshui 雲水 15:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Admission of the existence of several sockpuppet accounts [51] Drm310 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See edit history on user page. Put ((Blockedsock)) template on own user page EvergreenFir (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
For second and third, both vandalized this page. PasswordIsq has that template on their page as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed I've closed the last two now that there is a new report. Can a CU please check this one especially for sleepers. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Extensive history of editing Disney related articles, extensive evidence of editing prior to establishing this account, initial thoughts from other administrators was "Bambifan ?". Currently to be found disrupting RFC on Archive.is . See [52] [53] [54] [55] Nick (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The user's clearly focused on Disney topics. Deleted references[70], talk page comments,[71][72][73], but also is too-aware of policy for a new account with edits and summaries such as these.[74] An odd one to alter talk page archiving.[75] Repeatedly makes claim of newness.[76] Yet also claims to have been an IP for some time.[77]
I think the SPI is necessary to figure out if our "Forbidden User" is actually "Forbidden", because their familiarity with all things Wikipedia and constant contradictions, poor prose and combative mentality seem to be hallmarks of many LTA. They seem quite aware of the policies and procedures and take part in Administrator's noticeboard requests for closure, comment on user name and banning policy questions and behave very unusually for someone claiming to be new and goes to point out that they are "in school" and how long they have been on Wikipedia on their userpage. And also make this aware within a week of joining.[84] Anyways. Wonder what turns up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
((endorse)) Admin endorsing request. Nick (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Bambifan senses are tingling. IP editor focusing on Disney films and tween/teen TV shows, geolocating to Mobile, Alabama, last known physical whereabouts of BF101. McDoobAU93 13:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
New editor, focusing exclusively on edits to Disney films—note editing of hatnotes, something VERY few new editors would know about—as well as Gordy and tween-oriented TV shows. All are common Bambifan targets; please refer to WP:LTA/BF101 for other details. McDoobAU93 04:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Another editor focusing almost exclusively on family films and now moving into edits at The Rescuers, one of BF101's top targets. Most likely nothing but the quacking is getting noticeable. McDoobAU93 04:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
none so far, username smells of socks Lerdthenerd wiki defender 14:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
DonkeyKongLover101 has created the article GoAnimate: The Movie, which was previously created at Go!Animate The Movie and GoAnimate The Movie. The original article was deleted as a hoax and had contributions from a confirmed sock of Bambifan101, User:SouthParkIsCool2014. I'm including LucaElliot2 on this since this was the account that created the Go!Animate version, but was never blocked. Their edit history looks to be similar to Bambifan101's MO in that they liked to edit animation themed articles. I figure that if it's enough of a WP:DUCK scenario it might be worthwhile to block this account even though it's obviously stale, if only to deter attempts to return and use the account. Now the main link with DonkeyKongLover101 is that they recreated this article at GoAnimate: The Movie, which kind of comes across as an attempt to avoid detection- and this would have succeeded if I hadn't stumbled across the AfD and remembered the prior attempts to add this film to the mainspace.
Now when it comes to Anthonyg328 I'm really not entirely sure. Their only link to this is that they created the first version of the article at GoAnimate The Movie, which was an extremely blatant hoax. I wasn't going to name them but I also saw where they liked to edit animation articles similar to Bambifan101's editing style. At the very least I want to hear an explanation as to why they decided to create the article.
This isn't the strongest-strongest evidence to tie these people to Bambifan101, but it's enough to where I think that it'd be better to open up an SPI and doublecheck things in case this is another attempt to evade a block. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Those three are confirmed to Bambifan101 by a checkuser (See: [86]). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
WP:DUCK, this. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 20:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Disney-related hoaxes. May not be BambiFan, though (Lassie? Maelbros? Alexcas?). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I've declined the CU request. We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Username is VERY similar. Also created obvious hoax article currently at AFD (Bambifan's LTA says that he creates hoax movie and TV show articles and has a female alter-ego). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This came up at UAA. Would be worth a check. I've ticked the box for CU as there is currently no behavioural evidence to go by. Zerotalk 11:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Behavioral evidence must be presented. Also, the data is Stale. Closing without prejudice.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:DUCK. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I came across this via the article Go!animate the movie, which was one of the movies that Bambifan01 liked to create. They also tried to create it at the salted entry and ended up just making it at Talk:Go!Animate: The Movie. A look at their now deleted article history shows a pattern of creating hoax articles, which is in keeping with this editor. For those who can see deleted article history, you can check this out at The dog tale fan-film, Geo's 1st Movie, and The Dog Tale Story.
This is a pretty obvious sock so I'm more listing this for the record and so there can be a sweep for other accounts, as this guy usually opens multiple accounts at a time. Something to take into consideration is that the user StevenBInc is probably related to Bambifan01, as they share some similarities in editing, namely the focus on the fake Go!Animate movie. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Username along with the creation of hoax articles (now deleted) associated with Disney. Username is now User:Bambifan101~enwiki - GB fan 12:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Infamous vandal Bambifan101™ was at it again: 1 2 3 Talk page circumstantial evidences showing he created "The Rescuers (2013 film)"
Good that User:Widr has blocked the world's #1 Wikipedia vandal's sock 11 days ago so I'm filing here for the record. Vitt56 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Page move vandalism. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Jkjk is already globally locked for long-term abuse, should also pass the duck test. This one is mainly about establishing a connection between Kkjj and the master. Kkjj is blocked in two projects but I don't think a CU has ever been run on this account - if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
Kkjj and Jkjk have some strange overlapping in multiple projects. I raised my suspicion when looking at tlwiki's vandalism and found that almost all pages Jkjk vandalized were previously edited by Kkjj. see Jkjk's contribs there. I know Bambifan101 has some weird stalking behavior, but there's something else I found didn't completely make sense to me.
For example in zhwiki, these edits are made 30 minutes apart and both are Disney movies. Note that edits by Jkjk are clearly vandalism.
Kkjj has been editing Disney related articles in multiple wikis, but the additions were not always in compliant to the local wikis' formatting standards - e.g. this edit in zhwiki adds a lot of interwiki links (discouraged by zhwiki) and untranslated English names, changing the country
parameter from "((USA))" (should transclude to something like 美国) to "United States" - this is not helping the project. Why change the name of the country in the infobox from Chinese to English in a Chinese project? The interwiki links were somehow fixed in later revisions, but still not the country name - 1, 2.
Back in enwiki, the overlap between Jkjk and Kkjj is just unbelievable. They are literally editing together.
Also take a quick look at Kkjj's edits in enwiki, a majority are related to Disney movies (just as other projects); Bambifan101's vandalism targes are also Disney movies cross-wiki, many of which are what Kkjj have just edited.
The LTA page states, "Bambifan101 is the Wikipedia alias of a teenager from Mobile, Alabama who is a fan of juvenile-themed movies, books, and TV shows". There is a SPI case regarding Kkjj and the suspected sock is using an Alabama IP address. Also in zhwiki page history of 101忠狗續集:倫敦大冒險, an Alabama user edited the page first, three days later Kkjj edited, and then Jkjk. This kind of doesn't make sense to me, did Kkjj stalk someone in Alabama or what?
I would like a CU to look into this case to see if Kkjj is technically related to Jkjk and/or the master, since I am not entirely confident with my conclusion because Kkjj has been editing for quite a while and never suspected as Bambifan101 sock, especially given the strong overlap at Frozen (2013 film) in enwiki. Also, it is good to check if any of the accounts are using any proxies or VPN. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 07:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Kkjj is Confirmed, blocked and tagged. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkjj. @Ajraddatz: Please globally lock the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Whenmoney's behavior looks very similar to Bambifan101, as both had edited the pages on family-friendly movies. On the Portuguese Wikipedia, they replaced information on The Fox and the Hound's article with the CGI film Spider's Web: A Pig's Tale. Bambifan had obsessed over Spider's Web in the past, calling it "the most stupid movie on the face of the Earth". This edit essentially confirms that Whenmoney is Bambifan. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
User's edits match the articles that Bambifan101 frequented almost exactly, including Disney films like The Fox and the Hound, The Rescuers Down Under and children's films/properties like Spider's Web: A Pig's Tale (2006 film). And they have just edited the LTA page for a user they theoretically should know nothing about, here. --McDoobAU93 18:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Might have another one. Again, focusing on Disney animated features, usually with minor improvements, enough to reach auto-confirmed status. Similar edit summaries in some cases, as well, such as this one for Tingtangtong and this one for Bambi, the last sock. --McDoobAU93 18:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This one got caught after only two edits, again to a frequent target article. Already indef-blocked, but adding here for record-keeping purposes. --McDoobAU93 15:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Similar user names, highly similar edits at 101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure. I note that the socks themselves previously have been blocked. Also, Tingtangtong~zhwiki is currently making a series of vandal edits.-- Tenebrae (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
WP:DUCK Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Unrelated. @Amaury: Next time, please provide evidence, not just "duck".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Username matches the pattern of this sock, only edit is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Householder&diff=prev&oldid=837716316. WP:DUCK to me. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:7C0B:696A:6261:BCCA (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Large number of edits on frequent Bambifan targets. Per consensus when dealing with LTA cases, the user has NOT been notified of this. --McDoobAU93 13:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This username was flagged by a bot as suspicious, for obvious reasons. It may well be innocuous, and I do not know whether the obvious username similarity by itself is enough to run a check in this case. Normally, I would AGF and not think twice about it, but given the severity of this case, I think I should leave the decision to an SPI clerk either way. ~~Swarm~~ 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This user shares nothing in common with the master other than the username, which is insufficient to take any action. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Edits are related to Disney and Bambifans' edits. User is aware of several Wikimedia editings, including Wikidata and previous edits reverted under suspected sockpuppetry[87][88]. The edit summaries remind me to that of Frienshipfan User will not be notified per the long-term abuse listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 02:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Edits to Liv and Maddie were exactly the same as the ones Bambifan was trying to do a few years ago under different accounts. And this isn't the first time socks have popped up since. Amaury • 19:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
WP:DUCK. Same edits, same editing pattern. Amaury • 00:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This case is being reviewed by Spicy as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
Self-admitted by known IPV6 range. wizzito | say hello! 18:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
targeted articles Will120 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)