Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

MagdelenaDiArco



 * Code letter:F and possibly C'''

Recently the pages about Maltese language have been haunted by a series of disruptive editors. Some of these have already been blocked for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing (User:Brunodam, User:Giovanni Giove, User:MagdelenaDiArco, User:Kalindoscopy inter alia) but a number of very new accounts with editing patterns astonishingly similar to those of the above mentioned blocked users have entered into discussions, stalled decisionmaking and affected consensus building and defended the sockpuppeteers. It would be useful to know whether these accounts are sockpuppets of the above editor(s) and if they all belong to the same person. It seems that this is a case of increasingly complex of purposeful disruption.
 * Supporting evidence:

As evidence I provide the entire editing histories of the suspected sockpuppets which should be compared to the editing histories of the blocked users.
 * Special:Contributions/84.13.166.223
 * Special:Contributions/Lacrystallililcry
 * Special:Contributions/210.19.71.60
 * Special:Contributions/89.243.39.216
 * Special:Contributions/Gianovito
 * Special:Contributions/78.151.145.115
 * Special:Contributions/89.242.104.114
 * Special:Contributions/78.146.180.7
 * Special:Contributions/89.243.32.74
 * Special:Contributions/78.151.100.13
 * Special:Contributions/78.146.51.45
 * Special:Contributions/78.151.113.203

I also appeal to review the contents of Talk:Maltese language in order to see how the different suspected accounts seemingly work together to stall and disrupt. This is the first tie I file a checkuser request and I am sorry if I have not done it right - please tell me if something needs to be changed.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See also Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice - should this be dealt with as the latest RFCU on that account? BencherliteTalk 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe it should.·Maunus· ƛ · 07:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a few more IPs to the list.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to point out that Yolgnu, who has a known bias against Kalindoscopy, is now having a known bias against MagdelenaDiArco. I think this is significant - Yolgnu knows something, and is involved in this whole set of affairs. For that reason, I am adding Yolgnu's name to the list and removing Brunodam's. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that for good order anyone who edits this request including myself should be checked.·Maunus· ƛ · 08:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have informed User:Thatcher on their talk page about the current request, having taken into consideration that it was he who dealt with the previous case regarding MagdelenaDiArco. I am also adding another to the list - MedagliaD'Oro a known sock of Giovanni Giove, who MagdelenaDiArco as we know had some form of "interest" in, and an uncannily similar name. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, suspected socks cannot add their accusers' names to the list. Maunus can add my name himself if he thinks I am a sockpuppet.--Yolgnu (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you will find they can, and until you quote me a policy which suggests otherwise, your name is going on that list. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record I don't think Yolgnu is a sockpuppet. But as it is unclear to me whether suspected socks can add their accusers names I shall refrain from removing it. I am also willing to submit myself to a chekcuser if any of the suspected socks should accuse me of  being a part of the sockweb.·Maunus· ƛ · 08:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I won't remove it either; there seems to be no rule against it - perhaps nobody imagined such a situation. But I think we should all have a good read of WP:RFCU: admin will not use checkuser to prove a user's innocence, nor will they use it without substantial evidence that the user is a sockpuppet.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) - Another thought has crossed my mind. After having checked up on things, I find this significant:

The date Brunodam signed up - 27 August 2006 The date Giovanni Giove signed up - 7 July 2006

Is it just me, or is this too much of a coincidence that the two editors sign up a month after eachother, then both go on to edit the exact same things, and get banned the exact same way?

Then,

MedagliaD'Oro signs up 13th April 2008 MagdelenaDiArco signs up 11th May 2008

Similar names, sign up a month after eachother, both involved in the same sock web - coincidence?

Oh and look, Brunodam's last edit was the 6th of May - around the same time he appears to have switched to MagdelenaDiArco.

Before the arrival of User:Iamandrewrice, Brunodam is editing every day, but when Iamandrewrice arrives on the 13th November 2007, Brunodam stops for a whole seven days - very odd considering before that, he had been editing non-stop logging in every day. Even more interesting is the fact that at this time, Brunodam's main editing interest was Maltese Italians, which as we know, is significant when considering the identity of the supposed Iamandrewrice.

Then, more interesting is this.

Iamandrewrice created the article and edited it with sockpuppets Crystalclearchanges (On a side note, this name is interestingly similar to Lacrystallililcry) and Gozitancrabz, and Brunodam edited it not only with his "Brunodam account", but with sockpuppets ItaliaIrredenta, Pannonicus, BurtReed. So they all shared interest in that.

So what was Giovanni Giove doing during the time around Iamandrewrice's arrival? Oh look, he too was editing and logging in every single day, up until around Oh look the time just before when Iamandrewrice arrives], and straight after, starts editing Dalmatian Italians, likenable to Brunodam editing Maltese Italians.

And this is perhaps among the most significant. Kalindoscopy created his account on 7th December 2006, and edited almost without stop throughout his whole account life (with exception of between January-August 2007, which is the only other large break in editing) - until it came to the break between October 2007 and January 2008 - oh wait, the time Iamandrewrice arrived.

I am not so sure that these accounts may neccessarily be the same person, but am almost definite that they are in contact with eachother and have been manipulating things from behind the scenes for quite some time. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say anything, were I not mentioned by name.. but this sort of unfounded floundering after phantoms is pathetic. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

✅
 * Sockfarm #1:

❌
 * Brunodam
 * Kalindoscopy
 * Yolgnu

Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well User:ItaliaIrredenta was before proven to have been Brunodam, so if he/she is now being proven to be part of MagdelenaDiArco, that means Brunodam and MagdelenaDiArco are the same, surely. 210.19.71.60 (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkuser evidence is not infallible. As far as these two go, they are on different continents.  It would not be impossible for these two to be the same, but it is unlikely from the evidence I have in front of me.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose all the Irlam, Manchester IPs are members of Sockfarm 1.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the Opal Telecom (now known as TalkTalk) IPs, yes. They aren't necessarily Irlam -- that was just where Opal's headquarters were at the time the subnet was registered.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How do we go about getting Lacrystallililcry blocked now that the account has been proven to be a sockpuppet? Also it seems to be that a lot more investigation into the web of accounts of Iamandrewrice/Brunodam/Giovanni Giove/Jack Forbes/MagdelenaDiArco/ is warranted. This is a apparently long history of tendentious editing on related topics from different but related accounts. Imo not getting to the bottom of this would be a serious threat to wikipedias integrity. ·Maunus· ƛ · 10:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lacrystallililcry is now blocked, as is 210.19.71.60, the open proxy being used. Obviously there is a limit to the evidence CheckUser can provide -- you now have all the connections that can be established at this moment in time.  If you can link the others through non-CheckUser means, I would be surprised (different continents, etc.), but I don't rule it out.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it be made to look as if some accounts were registered from different continents by means of proxies?·Maunus· ƛ · 11:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, none of the IPs used are open proxies. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review
I was asked on my talk page to comment here,


 * ✅ sockfarm,
 * Note that this is related to Requests for checkuser/Case/Jack Forbes, which involved multiple sockpuppet of Fone4My.
 * is at least, he edits from the same ISP and in the same manner as the other above socks, although he tried to hide using an open proxy. I'd certainly tend to confirm on behavior as well.
 * Note that this is related to Requests for checkuser/Case/Jack Forbes, which involved multiple sockpuppet of Fone4My.
 * is at least, he edits from the same ISP and in the same manner as the other above socks, although he tried to hide using an open proxy. I'd certainly tend to confirm on behavior as well.
 * Note that this is related to Requests for checkuser/Case/Jack Forbes, which involved multiple sockpuppet of Fone4My.
 * is at least, he edits from the same ISP and in the same manner as the other above socks, although he tried to hide using an open proxy. I'd certainly tend to confirm on behavior as well.
 * Note that this is related to Requests for checkuser/Case/Jack Forbes, which involved multiple sockpuppet of Fone4My.
 * is at least, he edits from the same ISP and in the same manner as the other above socks, although he tried to hide using an open proxy. I'd certainly tend to confirm on behavior as well.


 * ✅ as a second group of socks, editing from a different country. No indications of open proxies involved.


 * Kalindoscopy and Yolgnu are ❌ to all. Thatcher 23:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

-- Thatcher 14:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Further results,
 * ✅ as sockpuppets of Lacrystallililcry/MagdelenaDiArco

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''