Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CadAPL/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


CadAPL

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

08 September 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Same reverts as earlier sockpuppet Eagle 66 (talk · contribs). Sjö (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

User: Gemstone Revival, User:Jackson Ames 01, User:Alis 2010 and User:Sam 9017 are confirmed to each other and clearly related.

User:Eagle 66, User:Bigot 27 and User:Oriental Sword are confirmed to each other. @Ponyo: these are clearly CadAPL socks, is the other set?

No comment on IPs. I have been trying to protect pages, there have been a lot! Doug Weller talk 13:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note:  Proxies blocked. @Doug Weller:, should I mass-rollback their edits and/or move this case? Thanks! GABgab 15:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralizationsAreBad: Rollback please. I'm hoping Ponyo can shed more light. Thanks for blocking the proxies, I need learn more about proxies. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller:  Done. GABgab 15:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs just went through my contribs list and rolled back my edits that were reverts of CadAPL sock edits. I had 99+ notifications when I logged in. It must of been a pain for them having to roll them back individually. Oh well. I'll take a look at the new accounts now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CadAPL socks edit from Asia and Western Europe contemporaneously through various webhosting services. The second group above (Gemstone Revival, Jackson Ames 01, Alis 2010 and Sam 9017) are editing from North America, so either CadAPL has switched tactics or aother sockmaster I pissed off yesterday decided to join in on the "revert Ponyo" fun. As everything is blocked, I'm not sure there's anything more to be done except to thank the both of you for the clean-up!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: Should we move this case and/or tag anyone? Thanks, GABgab 17:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only confirmed account that remains untagged is Eagle 66 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I don't think there's any point in tagging the other throw aways as it could be a joe job that confuses further checks.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you! Whoever this is they're pretty persistent. I agree with you about the other lot I identified. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged Eagle 66, closing. GABgab 00:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 September 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Same reverts as earlier socks. Probably proxy. Sjö (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 October 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

 Looks like a duck to me [1] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Quinton Feldberg (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 October 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Also a

WP:DUCK. [2] Quinton Feldberg (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Quinton Feldberg (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CadAPL. This needs merging with a new case replacing both as User:Slayer9004 is the oldest. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk declined as redundant to findings in the related case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01 October 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Slayer9004 restored edits by Oriental Sword and other socks. Slayer9004 created Rushdie Kikhia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and 1. History fanatic created Draft:Rushdie Kikhia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEAT: Slayer9004 claims to be proxying for a blocked editor. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Slayer9004 and 1. History fanatic are  Confirmed as is Eternal Police (talk · contribs). Editing as before from Asia and Europe. Interestingly, Cadmus90 (talk · contribs) who returned to edit their talk page is also, and Cadmus90 is the oldest. There is an open case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadmus90 and these will need merging. And I guess some new tagging, but I won't do that unless the cases are merged. @Ponyo:, any comments? Doug Weller talk 08:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, Slayer9004's account was opened in 2013, so that's the oldest. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: That's a very, ah, sleepy sleeper! I'm not sure if the case should be moved as Slayer9004 hold a grand total of 3 edits, all in 2013, prior to being revived. I think that editors tracking this sockmaster are used to identifying them as CadAPL. I'm not bothered if the clerks disagree and want to move it.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me so long as we merge these. Doug Weller talk 04:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I'm also fine with leaving this here, notwithstanding the older accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Hamath-Zobah 17 previously used Aemilius 04, EastWest and 1. History fanatic as sockpuppets; all his accounts were blocked on 13 November 2017. The Mark Mercer account's first edits date from 14 November 2017. Mark Mercer, as did the previously blocked accounts, show a strong interest in Syrian history from an apparent (Judaeo-)Christian perspective, and also Arab basketball and football teams. On 18 October 2017, Hamath-Zobah 17 inserted the 'Sirion' fringe theory regarding the origin of the name 'Syria', partially based on Christian non-academic sources, into the article Syria#Etymology, a move which he replicated just 2 minutes later in the article Name of Syria#Etymology. All subsequent edits in the latter article on 18 and 19 October were by Hamath-Zobah 17, followed by the last two by Mark Mercer on 6 and 15 December. In the Syria article, the Hamath-Zobah 17 edits were followed by three Aemilius 04 edits on 20 and 22 October, and then by two Mark Mercer edits on 28 November, with some edits of other users in between. The most convincing evidence seems to be the fact that Mark Mercer recently quite vigorously complained on the Syria talk page about changes I made to the Syria#Etymology section regarding the 'Sirion' fringe theory (which I edited and moved down in that section because I determined the historical consensus regarding this topic should be mentioned first before discussing alternatives with less support, noting that there appeared to be a Judaeo-Christian bias in the sources mentioned for this fringe theory). Mark Mercer shows quite a lot of frustration and anger towards both Jacob D (who first noticed the oddly-placed fringe theory) and me over a text added by Hamath-Zobah 17. Looking at the talk pages of Mark Mercer, Hamath-Zobah 17 and Aemilius 04, I notice a strong correlation in disruptive behaviour: getting quite angry at other users up to the point of not even being allowed to edit their own talk page, repeatedly not citing reliable sources or any source at all, and violating copyright. This all seems to me clear evidence we're talking about the same person, who created a new account shortly after being blocked in an attempt to circumvent the blocks, and keep writing about the very same pages and topics with the same disruptive behaviour towards sources, copyright and other users. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional commentary: I've found that Aemilius 04 has previously been identified as a sockpuppet of CadAPL, who has also used Amorite Mercenary and LeoHsn, the last probably being the master account, blocked for repeated personal attacks and other disruptive behaviour on 13 April 2017. Each of the subsequent accounts appears to have been created in rapid succession after a previous account had been found out as a sock and blocked; each edited articles in the same manner about the same topics with the same attitude towards content, sources, copyright and other users. Looks like we're talking about a repeat offender who won't back down and try his luck again and again before being found out again. Comments like this one also confirm a pro-Christian and anti-Muslim bias (it was in response to this April 2017 AfD that master account LeoHsn was blocked on 13 April, and the sockpuppetry started on 14 April by creating CadAPL). Another commonality between Mark Mercer and previous accounts is being very concerned with knowledge of languages; CadAPL here and in his attack against me saying: "this DUTCH beauty "Nederlandse Leeuw" who can't even read Aramaic or Hebrew". If I can formulate a further hypothesis, I think this person is a Syriac Christian or someone of that descent, who has perhaps been 'radicalised' by the civil war now taking place in Syria, and he seeks to safeguard what he sees as the Christian heritage of Syria here on Wikipedia, whilst also trying to warn the world about the dangers of Islam(ism). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed. Blocked and tagged. This should be merged to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CadAPL.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Case moved, closing. GABgab 19:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

CadAPL / Hamath-Zobah 17 / Aemilius 04 / Amorite Mercenary / Mark Mercer etc. strikes once again after being blocked again yesterday. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Only one edit, and that was two days ago. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

One of this editor's first edits was to restore content to European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics previously added by a CadAPL-sock. (Compare this to this.) Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

12 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

One of the first things this editor did on becoming auto confirmed was to reinstate reverted edits from the last CadAPL sock, CoolHero10 (talk · contribs). Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

24 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Like most previous socks, this editor has repeated CadAPL's edits to European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics. (Compare this to this). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

24 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets


Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. Noting here for the record. They have amassed over 3500 edits in just over three months, so I'll move this to Clerk status to see if any action will be taken regarding nuking all of these articles. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate as they blocked the last sock, (Aprilman21).-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've nuked what I can, though the tool seems to fail to find about half of their creations. I've also revoked their talk page access after two unconvincing unblock requests. This should probably be the default setting for blocks against CadAPL socks going forward. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been blocking him with talk page access preemptively disabled for a while now. It's always political rants, personal attacks, and "I created a well-sourced article so you have no right to block me". He's usually got lots of IP socks active at the same time, mostly editing from proxies. Hopefully the proxy-blocking bots will take care of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Clenixon first showed up on my radar a few months ago, having recreated articles on Udo Steinberg and Otto Maier (footballer) that were oddly similar to versions written by Alas2022. My thinking at the time was that they were both following the same source maybe a little too closely. Given that they've now admitted to sockpuppetry (see their comments at User talk:Barr Theo following their block), I think this warrants a closer look. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - I'm not sure if CheckUser is actually feasible here, but given how far removed Alas2022 was from previous socks, it looks like their might be archived CU data to check against. If there is, please check to confirm and for additional accounts. If not, please close the case without action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Clenixon. Izno (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two accounts are  Confirmed to one another; they're editing out of a single /64 range. I don't see any other accounts on it, but I do see a great many unsuccessful attempts to log into Edmundoss, so I assume that is either another one of their accounts, or they have been attempting to hack someone else's account. Technically, this looks to be unconnected to CadAPL, at least as far as I can tell from the historic data. Girth Summit (blether) 14:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the CU result, these two are most likely unrelated to CadAPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CadAPL/Archive&oldid=1139221312"