Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

User:G.-M. Cupertino

G.-M. Cupertino (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

G.-M. Cupertino

G.-M. Cupertino (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date March 27 2009, 14:21 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by —Kww(talk)

From the most recent contributions (such as this one, where it removed all comments by or about G.-M. Cupertino), it would appear that 195.22.28.18 is a static IP address belonging to G-M.Cupertino, who is on a one year ban. This edit would tend to confirm it. I think a hard-block against the IP until the expiration of the ban on January 26, 2010 is in order, and a sweep for any socks should be run as well.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by —Kww(talk) 14:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk endorsed to confirm, and check for collateral damage. Any block extensions need to be recorded on the Arb case. Mayalld (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Please tag and archive —— nixeagleemail me 03:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date April 5 2009, 16:20 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib)

I became suspicious after the IP placed a message on Cupertino's talk page (he was banned for a year by arbitration) that was copied from Ciudadano's talk page, claiming that he would quit using Wikipedia. (similar to claims that Cupertino has used in the past). [1]. Today, another user posted on Cupertino's talk page, expressing his or her concern that Cupertino was bypassing his block by using the aforementioned IP, which was still regularly editing. After a bit of investigation, this seems likely, as the IP has made previous edits that served to remove evidence against Cupertino regarding his arbitration case, including removing a large discussion between myself and Cupertino from my talk page archive. [2] [3] [4] [5] I included CiudadanoGlobal primarily because of the suspicious talk page posting, but the IP is the real issue here. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 16:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nevermind, Kww just pointed out that the IP has already been blocked for being a sock of Cupertino. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Completed CiudadanoGlobal is unlikely to be anything to do with this, but the ip is  IP blocked and all is well with the world. Mayalld (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Kww

I noted this complaint. When I examined the edits, I agreed: GMC's latest crusade was the insertion of inappropriate German translations, and this looks like the same editor back. I've already blocked. Geographically, the IPs don't match well with previous GMC socks, so I invite review and scrutiny.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Looks OK. Could have been travels or w/e.

talk) 22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
05 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Kww

Contribution overlap, including major contributions to such obscure articles as Sir John Campbell, of Airds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and

WP:DUCK. —Kww(talk) 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Already blocked and tagged, just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Restoring reverted edits by known Cupertino socks Phoebus de Lusignan (diff) and LoveActresses (diff). Other edits show focus on minor titles of nobility, consistent with those of LoveActresses. Agricolae (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2010 (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
15 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Common interest (English aristocracy in the Middle Ages) is fairly arcane and reflects an almost perfect overlap; also the four most recent edits by the IP (to William Sharon, Chris Strachwitz and Francis G. Newlands) are all on articles previously edited by G.-M. Cupertino, and included testy edit summaries, which are evidently a hallmark of the (banned) master. JohnInDC (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (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

I'm sorry, but checkuser will not link IPs with named accounts. TNXMan 20:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardblocked the IP. Behaviourally, this is obviously him, and the reported IP matches networks with IPs previously associated with the user.—Kww(talk) 21:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Duck. This editor started editing on the The very first edit was to add a sophisticated table without an error, that first time users with no experimentalist in a sandbox would be very unlikely to do. Then the user went on to edit many pages of interest to

talk) 18:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

The genealogical chart in the cited edit is not all that sophisticated. The numbering is a standard format used by genealogists, and the headers etc. seem pretty obvious. The first time I saw one, I could have immediately edited or replicated it without error, without using a sandbox. That doesn't mean the current User isn't GMC (or at least LoveActresses and Konakonian), but that will have to come from the CheckUser and not their ability to throw together such a table. Agricolae (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Created immediately after Konakonian was blocked, as well. Blocking, tagging.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a checkuser request because the user requested unblock several hours ago, and it'd unlikely that anyone will unblock him until a checkuser is run.—Kww(talk) 05:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk endorsed - T. Canens (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based upon the limited technical information I have to go off of, I am going to say that Gtommy17 (talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated. Gtommy17's IPs geolocate to a completely different continent than those that have been blocked as G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs)'s in the past. That said, it was never technically confirmed that the IPs blocked as G.-M. Cupertino's were in fact his. Tiptoety talk 19:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specifically comment on Konakonian (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and LoveActresses (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), whom I have recently blocked as GMC socks? They were my basis for blocking Gtommy17.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Konakonian (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as a sock of G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs), LoveActresses (talk · contribs) is  Stale. That said Gtommy17 (talk · contribs) does not share any similarities (technically speaking) to Konakonian. Hope that helps, Tiptoety talk 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked Gtommy17.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Promoting Christian Settipani; similar editing style on this article, similar responses to other editors, similar editing on a number of obscure historical articles which are part of Settipani's descent-from-antiquity work... see the article overlap. Also appears to edit as GradyELoy (talk · contribs). Could be meatpuppetry instead of sockpuppetry. bobrayner (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

GradyEdwardLoy and GradyELoy are the same, and this User should pick one and stick with it rather than switching back and forth, but in terms of overlap with GMC, I don't see it. The only pages in common are interrelated, and anyone interested in Descents from Antiquity is likely to edit this set of pages. What is missing is obsession with titles of nobility (or editing any common articles on nobility outside of this very limited selection of Gallo-Romans) and obscure medieval families, while GradyEL has made substantial additions to two pages on obscure Arizona towns that fall well outside GMCs area of interest. There is a similar editing style, but it is a common editing style, that of the typical beginner with little experience in collaborating and reaching consensus (while an editor for over 3 years, less than 200 edits to article space have been made), rather than something unique to GMC (who simply never grew out of this phase). This is a duck that doesn't quack. Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd need to see some very specific evidence. Comparing the talk page edits, I get the sense of two very different people.—Kww(talk) 00:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. I respect you both very much as editors; if that's your judgement, it's likely that I made a false-positive this time. (Alas, there remain some content problems on Settipani, but that's not a job for SPI) bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Nothing to do here. I'll have a separate discussion about the GradyEdwardLoy/GradyELoy accounts. I don't see that there's an intent to deceive, but I also don't see any legitimate reason for the pair of accounts.—Kww(talk) 23:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

08 February 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


[6] and [7] added content introduced here by HRO'Neill (talk · contribs), who is blocked as a sock of G.-M. Cupertino. Paradoctor (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2014 (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

08 January 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

I was advised by User:Slashme that text I had previously overwritten with a redirect has been reinstated.

Rinstatment of text by 83.240.186.98 added by 193.136.1.14 a suspected sock of User:G.-M. Cupertino to article Joan Brooke, 5th Baroness Cobham history diff between Revision as of 15:39, 3 December 2010 by 193.136.1.14 and Revision as of 17:09, 7 January 2019 by 83.240.186.98.

I ran editor interaction beteen the to ip addresses it is clear to me that 83.240.186.98 is a suspected sock of User:G.-M. Cupertino result

Other suspected sock accounts of User:G.-M. Cupertino with matching results tp 83.240.186.98:

ping user:83.240.186.98

I would like a second opinion of this. PBS (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • @PBS: Obvious sock is obvious: the IP in this report (which has been blocked three times over the past six weeks for adding unsourced material on BLP's...) is a perfect match for two IPs that I found in the archive of this SPI (and that have previously been blocked as socks: Special:Contributions/77.54.100.183/block log and Special:Contributions/193.136.1.14/block log), in both edits and geolocation (Lisbon, Portugal). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only problem now is going through their edits, because they're a very prolific editor, having made more than 300 edits today alone... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Thomas.W: As you agree with my initial analysis, I have blocked the IP address of three months. I will help with the cleanup, but I only have sparodic access to the internet at the moment. Unfortunatly given this user's past behaviour, now that (s)he seems to be active again please be on the alert of more sockaccounts covering the same subject matter. -- PBS (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@PBS: I checked the IP's global contributions, and found that they're currently on long blocks on the Spanish and Portuguese WPs too, and just came off a one-month block on the Italian WP (for the same kind of editing on all of those as here), having racked up at least as many blocks on each of those (nine blocks in two months on the Portuguese WP...) over the past two months as here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be other IPs involved. On Richard Lee I, the same information kept being reinserted by what seemed to be a single editor using not only 83.240.186.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but also 195.245.147.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 87.103.15.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 213.141.15.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 94.62.73.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (Of these, 87.103.15.190 also joined 83.240.186.98 in reinserting BLP info on Yancy Spencer III.) Agricolae (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
. . . and two more: 213.30.22.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 213.30.68.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Agricolae (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of those IPs match the reported IP in both geolocation and recent edits, and should be watched, but none of them has edited over the past few days. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Nothing to do here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11 January 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP was mentioned just days ago in a now-closed investigation [8] of another IP as being among those that had been used relatively recently by what seemed to be the same actual longtime-blocked sockmaster to carry out a content dispute, and an analysis during that investigation concluded that it and the others "match the reported IP in both geolocation and recent edits, and should be watched, but none of them has edited over the past few days." They now using this one again to make edits, restoring all or part of content previously inserted by the just-blocked IP-sock 83.240.186.98. [9] [10] [11] [12] Agricolae (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other IP addresses

this IP address has been identified as a probable sockpuppet and blocked. --PBS (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP addresses that has probably been used as a sockpuppet:

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I filed a report at WP:AIV since the socking was utterly obvious, so they're now blocked, and this report can be closed. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now checked all the edits made by the IP address user:83.240.186.98 back to when it was first used to edit Wikipedia (14:54, 25 September 2018), Most if not all the edits have been reverted. This exercise uncovered a number of other IP addresses propbably used by the same sock master during this period all of which, with one notable exception have also been reverted.
The excpetion is user:213.141.15.42. I have checked all the recent edits edits made in the last few months and they have been reverted. Unfortunatly it is obvious from articles edited back in 2015 that have been edited more recently by sockpuppets of GMC:
that this IP address was probably used from November 2014 by GMC without detection until recently.
Most of these edits are quite small but some of them are changes that added over a 1,000 characters to articles. The largest was:
-- PBS (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note IPs blocked and tagged by Widr and PBS. DrKay (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24 January 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Mentioned in previous (Jan 11 [13]) investigation as likely sock, but no action taken as it was considered stale. IP has now made 99 edits in past 24 hrs, some virtually identical to reverted edits of other blocked IP socks (e.g. [14]). Agricolae (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (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

  • IP now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07 February 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Cleaning up after this ip, I noticed the overlap with 83.240.186.98 (talk · contribs), in articles, content, and response to warnings.

Sorry for not catching it earlier.

talk) 17:22, 7 February 2019 (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

  • They were blocked for a week for vandalism; I've upped it to a month for obvious block evasion. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08 February 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

User is making a series of edits that are restoring material that established IPs and socks of G.-M. Cupertino repeatedly tried to insert into articles.[15][16][17]

This is sort of cookie-cutter material, so it is possible that this is just somebody else who thinks the same information should be in these articles (hence the request for a checkuser), but it seems likely to be another sock. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the case, IP 105.71.6.213 is also active today [18] making edits to pages previously edited by G.-M. Cupertino socks, including making identical edits.[19] Agricolae (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 105.71.6.211 has now repeated the string of edits to Byron entries made by G.-M. Cupertino socks in the previous months. This IP is a solid duck, and that makes 105.71.6.213 one too. 105.71.6.211 is repeating specific edits made yesterday by Peter Henry Adams [20], so that is looking pretty ducky too, this is all starting to take the appearance of a concerted sock action. Agricolae (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added another IP, 105.66.2.95. On my Talk page, in their first ever post, they tell me to stop removing their edits,[21] implicitly identifying them with 105.71.6.211. Agricolae (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And another in same range, 105.66.2.247, editing the same pages. Agricolae (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An additional one in the same range editing different pages, but editing a subset of previous Cupertino favorites: 105.66.0.168 Agricolae (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
105.66.0.200 (same pages, picked up discussion on my Talk page where other 105.66.*.* left off. Agricolae (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and now 105.71.132.88 is making the same edits. Agricolae (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2019 (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

08 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

See another sock and this. Same articles same edits Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2019 (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

25 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Former IP is contininuing the (bad) edits of the latter IP (which has been blocked). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:29, 25 April 2019 (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

26 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


Same network and geolocation, repeating the same edits as previous sock. Richard Branson: [22], [23]; Falconer (surname):[24], [25], [26]. IamNotU (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2019 (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


27 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits as just-blocked Cupertino IP socks 89.214.235.171 [27] and 83.240.186.98 [28]. Agricolae (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2019 (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


28 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

same edits as blocked Cupertino sock 46.50.74.211 [29], [30] Agricolae (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2019 (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

29 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

More block evasion by G.-M. Cupertino. See edit history of Clan Buchanan. Interstellarity (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2019 (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

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Per the privacy policy, checkusers cannot publicly disclose the connection between an IP and a user. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Reaper Eternal, did I do something wrong? This is my first time reporting a sockpuppet. If I did something wrong, can you please explain what I did so that I don't make the same mistake again? Thank you. Interstellarity (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


01 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

restoration of material previously added by just-blocked Cupertino sock IP 95.69.19.9 (e.g. [31] , [32]) Agricolae (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2019 (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 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

restoring content of blocked Cupertino IP socks [33], [34], and many many more Agricolae (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2019 (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

06 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Same edit by previously-blocked IP socks: [35] and [36], is repeated by ip2: [37]; it's their only edit but from the same network and location. A couple of hours later, ip1 makes a related edit, again from the same network and location: [38]. They're obviously the same person, prolific edits of "see also" sections in surname articles, for example reinstating edits of previous socks in Ahrendt: [39]. IamNotU (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a third IP, also same network and location. Continuing edit war of previous socks here: [40] with same edit: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Similar edits to previously-blocked socks in Kathryn Morris, Scotty Valens, etc. --IamNotU (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2019 (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

10 June 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

making similar edits to a lot of surname pages as previous reverted edits by other Cupertino socks. Some examples: [47], [48], and many, many more. Agricolae (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2019 (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


10 June 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Started editing the same pages within minutes of the previous sock being blocked [49], [50], [51] Agricolae (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2019 (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

  • Blocked this one. A whole string of one-month range-blocks are about to expire, so stay tuned for renewed activity. Favonian (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


10 June 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

sock used yesterday, same pattern [52], [53] and more. Agricolae (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2019 (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

15 March 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Alvalade XXI's account was globally locked on 4th March for long-term abuse. They're most recent work focused on COVID19 deaths from the recent deaths page, adding this information to recently deceased subjects (example). The sock user account started to edit two days later, and has the same edit pattern (example). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: @Blablubbs: thanks for this. Sorry to be a pain, but as soon as this account was bagged and tagged, Necrologue (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) appeared working on the exact same articles with the same m/o. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And another one! Nekrologue (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:31, 16 March 2021 (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.
Also found and  Confirmed:
Acertos (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ministério dos Corninhos (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Bagging and tagging all accounts. This SPI can be closed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested. Blablubbs|talk 21:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't make sense to split this, so recycle Reopened. Blablubbs|talk 09:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lock requested and received, socks tagged accordingly, all edits reverted. Leaving open for CU and/or local blocks. Blablubbs|talk 11:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15 April 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

The account clearly has the same editing patterns as this account, which is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Alvalade_XXI (see for example: diff and diff). Both accounts mainly edit articles about recently deceased people. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yes, def. the same person IMO. Noticed this editor the other day, a new account, doing the same sort of editing as the sockmaster. Both have edited this article, for example. I'm sure there will be more. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked and globally locked. DrKay (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This case is being reviewed by Blablubbs 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.
    recycle Reopened and CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk – clearly them, but the last CU run a month ago found some sleepers, I think it's worth another look. Blablubbs|talk 12:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following accounts are all active on the same IP:
  • All are globally locked save for Marcha Real de Granaderos, who's been blocked for socking at es.wiki.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Xwiki behaviour is convincing, Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested. Given how far back this goes, I'm leaving them with  No tags. Closing. Blablubbs|talk 22:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Pro-forma, see below. --Blablubbs|talk 13:23, 17 May 2021 (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 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Dahlia&diff=prev&oldid=1040998743

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael,_Prince_of_Montenegro&diff=prev&oldid=1007751972  Looks like a duck to me

FMSky (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


this user is also another sock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Menino_Tonecas

requesting checkuser for any others — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSky (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I requested a lock for Cascais, uma vez e nunca mais! (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) because apparently, it was CU-confirmed on ptwiki, if that was alright. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Blocked but awaiting tags, and noting that they are CU-confirmed on ptwiki.  Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check and to see if we can get an IP block in place. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 IP blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Malig77 has the same obsession with COVID-19 deaths. They intersect on various articles with previous socks, e.g., Javier Neves with Alvalade XXI; and Moisés Mamani with Obituarian and Alvalade XXI. However, there are dissimilarities: unlike most of the blocked socks, (1) Malig77 does not mark all edits as minor, (2) Malig77 uses edit summaries sometimes, and (3) Malig77 creates articles. The article creation is at an amazingly rapid clip, although the articles are very patterned and short, and all concern people who died of COVID-19. Because of these differences, I am requesting a CU. Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2021 (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

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking against the group from 12 September 2021 and also against some notes in cuwiki, Red X Unrelated -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malig77's editing style seems unusual for a new user, but given the CU results and the behavioural dissimilarities noted in the filing, closing without action. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

All three of these accounts seem to be obsessed with linking to historical countries for recently deceased individuals, violating

WP:EGG. For example, on the article for Anna Maria Tatò
, the subject was born in Italy, but each one of these editors keeps re-adding [[Kingdom of Italy|Italy]] in the infobox. Diffs:

Other recent examples include:

  1. IP and MSLCPR adding [[French Fifth Republic|France]] as the place of death to Henri Garcin's article.
  2. IP and MSLCPR adding un-needed places in the infobox at Noel Campbell (footballer) and Billy Bingham.
  3. All three doing similar edits at Věslav Michalik.

There's massive overlap between Norman and MSLCPR per this. I added the IP address to the tool, but it doesn't seem to work, but I suspect the overlap would be very similar. I find it hard to believe that these three editors are working independently of each other to add such esoteric detail. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alvalade XXI! I knew there was another one doing this sort of editing, but I couldn't recall their username to save my life. Thanks Spicy! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 20 June 2022 (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

  • I'm skeptical that Normantas Bataitis is related to MSLCPR or the IP. Normantas Bataitis is a fairly tenured account with thousands of edits. Looking at CentralAuth, they seem to speak Lithuanian, while MSLPCR speaks Portuguese (and the IP geolocates to Portugal). NB uses edit summaries consistently whereas the other account and IP do not, and MSLCPR has created several redirects, while NB hasn't. Nearly all of the articles that these accounts overlap on involve individuals who died in 2022, so an explanation for this could be that they are simply working through the same categories.
    This brings us to MSLCPR and the IP. It seems likely to me based on geolocation and behavioural evidence that these two are the same. The IP has been blocked in the past as a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alvalade_XXI is a more recent SPI that is probably also related to G.-M. Cupertino - see the 15 April 2021 comment by Blablubbs). MSLCPR/62.48.155.6 share many behavioural similarities with Cupertino/Alvalade such as an interest in recent deaths and cross-wiki activity on the Portuguese Wikipedia.  Clerk endorsed for comparison of MSLCPR to historical/cuwiki data for these two cases & a sleeper check given the history of extensive socking. I'm not endorsing a check on Normantas Bataitis, though of course CUs are free to do so if they consider the evidence convincing enough. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MSLCPR is indeed  Confirmed to Alvalade XXI from historical notes. No comment on the IP. I see nothing technical linking them to Normantas Bataitis. Girth Summit (blether) 12:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hardblocked the IP for a year. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • seems all wrapped up, closing Girth Summit (blether) 12:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

EXAMPLES

Breaking up a paragraph after the initial sentence about a person.

MSLCPR:

  • Ilia Eloshvili Revision as of 2022-06-18T16:04:01
  • Yadunath Baskey Revision as of 2022-06-18T15:56:37
  • Piergiorgio Bressani Revision as of 2022-06-18T15:44:20

GMMMAC (sometimes adding a heading):

  • Alec Head Revision as of 2022-06-23T09:32:01
  • Oleksii Kovalov Revision as of 2022-06-23T09:32:53
  • Alipasha Umalatov Revision as of 2022-06-23T09:35:29

Adding links to certain eras in a country's history.

MSLCPR:

  • Nobuyuki Idei Revision as of 2022-06-18T15:51:35
  • Alexander Madiebo Revision as of 2022-06-18T15:48:46
  • Ra'anan Levy Revision as of 2022-06-18T15:48:13

GMMMAC:

  • Marilu Bueno Revision as of 2022-06-23T09:29:39
  • Danuza Leão Revision as of 2022-06-23T09:33:45
  • Stefan Geosits Revision as of 2022-06-23T09:49:40

Adding unnecessary states, provinces, etc. to place names.

MSLCPR:

  • Erasmus Schöfer Revision as of 2022-06-18T15:19:28
  • Paula Rego Revision as of 2022-06-18T15:13:17

GMMMAC:

  • Peter Barter Revision as of 2022-06-23T09:36:51
  • Thomas O'Riordan Revision as of 2022-06-23T09:50:51
  • Carol Raye Revision as of 2022-06-23T10:35:31

Considering occupied countries as part of Nazi Germany.

MSLCPR:

  • Jan Klijnjan Revision as of 2022-06-18T11:38:43

GMMMAC:

  • Jan Klijnjan Revision as of 2022-06-23T11:00:46
  • Uffe Ellemann-Jensen Revision as of 2022-06-23T09:55:11
  • Marie-Rose Gaillard Revision as of 2022-06-23T10:43:25

Keesal (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2022 (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

  •  In progress - Girth Summit (blether) 19:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I went down a few rabbit holes there, but GMMMAC is  Confirmed to MSLCPR, who is themselves confirmed to Alvalade XXI. Based on the history of blocks and the notes on CUwiki, I'm pretty confident that these are all G.-M._Cupertino. I'm going to merge the cases, add some notes on cuwiki, and request locks. Girth Summit (blether) 20:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested for GMMMAC. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08 April 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

In recent days, CdeVNdeP and SCPSLBFCPCFB have attempted to add precisely the same content, citing the same sources, to Sex differences in humans [54], Neuroscience of sex differences [55] and Sex differences in psychology [56]. After being reverted, both IP and SCPSLBFCPCFB proceeded to edit war in an attempt to force inclusion at two of these articles: see [57] [58] [59] versus [60].

A quick glance at the contribution history of these three accounts shows a great deal of thematic overlap: all three share a keen interest in the royal / noble houses of Europe. See in particular the special focus on the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck common to both SCPSLBFCPCFB (a small sample: [61] [62] [63]) and the IP (a small sample: [64] [65] [66]). Compare with, e.g., CdeVNdeP's focus on the house of Saxe-Coburg (a small sample: [67] [68] [69]), and their recent edits with regard to the

European Commission of the Nobility: (e.g. [70] [71] [72]). Both SCPSLBFCPCFB and the IP have also edited John Maynard Keynes to include the same excessive geographical specificity in the infobox: [73] versus [74]
.

There is also the stylistic overlap between SCPSLBFCPCFB and the IP in their hyperbolic edit summaries. Cf: How did you even find me here, you biased vandal? You are nothing but a negationist, an earthplainist about the sex differences in humans! (SCPSLBFCPCFB [75]) versus You have time to play in the article's talk page, I don't. The only thing you do is masking the scientific evidence of sex differences and attacking its most vocal defender and actual Psychologist behind Wikipedia's Leftist leanancy! (IP [76]).

The above should make clear that SCPSLBFCPCFB and the IP are very, very likely to be the same person. I'm asking for checkuser to confirm that SCPSLBFCPCFB is in fact the same person as CdeVNdeP. Also, given that SCPSLBFCPCFB was created last November, made 8 edits at that time and then disappeared until yesterday, whereupon it proceeded to make dozens of technical edits, my guess is that checkuser may uncover other sleepers as well –– and that indeed there may be a known sockmaster behind all three accounts. Generalrelative (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2022 (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

  •  In progress - Mz7 (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed plus Manuel de Sousa Coutinho (
    here to build an encyclopedia. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). The next clerk or administrator that sees this should examine the IP address's behavior to determine whether it should be blocked as well. Mz7 (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • information Administrator note given the IP three months off - behavioural similarities are enough for me, as well as the similar NOTHERE-ish behaviour as the others. Closing. firefly ( t · c ) 08:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 April 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

It looks like I've missed another sock here. Just as I was writing up my last report about SCPSLBFCPCFB and their socks CdeVNdeP and IP 93.108.235.122, who were edit warring to add a specific paragraph about purported sex differences to a number of articles ([77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]), IP 79.169.238.8 added precisely the same paragraph to another article, Sex as a biological variable: [84].

Both the established sock 93.108.235.122 and the newly discovered IP 79.169.238.8 geolocate to Lisbon, Portugal.

More behavioral similarities are evident as well, including 79.169.238.8's interest in the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck (a small sample: [85] [86] [87], and including edit warring to reinstate 93.108.235.122's edits after they were blocked for sockpuppetry: [88]); compare with blocked socks [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94]. Cf also 79.169.238.8's focus on the house of Saxe-Coburg ([95] [96] [97]) with that of sock the CdeVNdeP ([98] [99] [100]). Given that IP 93.108.235.122 continues to insist that they've done nothing wrong, and that they have many accounts [101], and that IP 79.169.238.8 continues to edit even after some of these other accounts were blocked, it looks to me like we have a clear DUCK for block evasion. Generalrelative (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second IP I've listed here, 2001:818:dceb:3c00:355a:6e67:9db6:a97a, recently edited Sex differences in leadership to push a strikingly similar POV, and also geolocates to Lisbon: [102]. IP 79.169.238.8 has also been active on this page recently: [103] [104]. Given the context, I strongly suspect that this is another alt of the same individual. Generalrelative (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2022 (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

  • 79 IP blocked, other IP hasn't edited in over a month. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 April 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

More evident block evasion. New IP edit warring over the same content [105] [106] (cf. [107] [108]) geolocates to the same region of Portugal, the Lisbon area. Similar interest in royalty as other SCPSLBFCPCFB socks. Looks like another alt for the same user. As should be clear from this, the sockmaster does not appear inclined to stop. Generalrelative (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If more evidence is needed, compare e.g. the rhetorical style and pattern of grammatical mistakes:
I did not use my many accounts to evade blockings, I was not blocked in any of them. I used them indiscriminately, sometimes one, sometimes the other. To have some less trouble, not because I was trying to pass as many people. There is nothing in my edits that suggest I tried to do such a thing, and even now I assume they are all mine. And yet, you have blocked my indefinitely as if I had done anything wrong! [109] (blocked IP 93.108.235.122)
versus:
These are not disruptive edits, nor is there any sign of sockpuppetry on them. Also, the doubts about the findings work both ways, including over the ones not finding, justifying a separate section that includes both lines. [110] and These are minor text not disruptive refinements without any noticeable connection to the accused of sockpuppetry. [111] (IP 62.28.19.234)
Generalrelative (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2022 (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

  • IP blocked, closing. firefly ( t · c ) 20:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

28 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

"New" account that started editing earlier today, with the same pattern as the previous socks of updating the place of birth/death for people who, er, died in 2022. Obvious

WP:DUCK. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:27, 28 June 2022 (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

  •  Clerk endorsed - same editing pattern as previous socks, e.g. [112][113] and I note that this account is already attached to ptwiki. Endorsing to confirm and check for others. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Deaths in 2022 is  Confirmed to
who is already CU-blocked by User:Girth Summit under this case. No sleepers found. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Tagged, requested lock, closing. Spicy (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

SCPSLBFCPCFB and their socks have a unique editing pattern which this IP fits perfectly. There are two main areas of focus: 1) purported sex differences in intelligence and behavior (which is where most of their disruption typically occurs) and 2) notable people –– especially members of the European nobility, e.g. [114], [115], [116] [117] (IP, just a small sample) versus [118], [119], [120], [121] (SCPSLBFCPCFB, again just a small sample) –– where they have a distinctive habit of adding unnecessary strings of place wikilinks to infoboxes like so: [122], [123], [124], [125] (IP) versus e.g. [126], [127], [128] (SCPSLBFCPCFB) [129] (one of their previous socks). The IP has recently begun a streak of activity in the topic area of sex differences in intelligence and behavior (a small sample: [130], [131], [132] versus e.g. [133]), which is how I noticed them. For anyone who has dealt with SCPSLBFCPCFB in the past, this is clearly a DUCK and a case of block evasion. Generalrelative (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Generalrelative (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also: forgot to mention that this IP like past SCPSLBFCPCFB IP socks geolocates to Portugal. Generalrelative (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2022 (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

09 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Those who are familiar with this LTA will immediately recognize the editing pattern, esp. the hyper-focus on the infoboxes of world leaders, and especially the bios of European nobility (Codexbox1: [134][135][136] versus known socks of G.-M. Cupertino, e.g.: [137][138][139]).

The editor interaction tool shows plenty of overlap with the original G.-M. Cupertino account (leaving aside all of the many known socks); over just 58 edits on 37 articles, Codexbox1 has managed to edit six of the same articles as the sockmaster: Manuel Azaña, Francisco Franco, Stanley Baldwin, Andrew Jackson, Benjamin Harrison, and Léon Blum. Generalrelative (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2022 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/G.-M._Cupertino/Archive&oldid=1143401067"