Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/84101e40247/Archive

25 June 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets

i'm reporting a sockpuppet who was banned some month ago by DoRD (his main account, 84101e40247, and some secondary accounts). some of his old accounts weren't found out, and since some weeks he started over creating new accounts again. he's using throwaway accounts exactly to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt: he creates a new account (almost always with a senseless name), makes his edit which as you'll see consists of removing or corrupting phonetic transcriptions (mainly in Italian), then he abandons the account and creates another one when he moves to another page or comes back to an already edited page; a very mean and measly conduct.
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

i'm sure i wasn't able to find them all but checkusers certainly will, and i bet that at least in some or even in all cases the IP addresses beyond these socks begin by 95, 87, 82, 80 and 79. to reassume, this user isn't just using improperly multi-accounts, but also behaving like a vandal when editing (in cases like this he corrupts a correct phonetic transcription, in cases like this he even removes it completely, sometimes tagging it as a minor edit to delude others). i hope that my report was helpful and adequate, and i also hope that actions'll be taken soon to stop this vandal from going on with such disruptive edits, by blocking his fakes and also his IP ranges if necessary, and that he's kept an eye on, because he's just damaging the encyclopedia by behaving like this.

post scriptum: i'd already reported this situation to DoRD about 10 days ago because he was the one who dealt with this user first, but since at the moment he's busy i decided to report him here and in order to do that i had to create an account, which i'm using just for this (N.B. my previous logged-out edits were made by IP 2A03:F480:1:3:0:0:0:66). --GDeChirico (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

 * It is exactly as GDeChirico says. A WP:DUCK, but blocking the accounts will have little effect since, as GDeChirico points out, the sockmaster just abandons accounts after one or a few edits anyway. Can we have a CheckUser, please, both to look for sleepers and to see whether any IP blocks or range blocks may help? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
 * - Sleepers check needed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've run a checkuser and blocked the following accounts:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Pretty clearly evading the previous block as an IP. The same obsession with syntactic gemination as its confirmed socks, e.g. (85.165.228.44) and. Like its confirmed socks repeatedly incorrectly alters broad IPA phonemic transcriptions of Italian phrases to narrow phonetic transcriptions to show doubled consonants which may or may occur in spoken language and can vary between speakers (WP practice is to use broad phonemic not narrow phonetic transcription), e. g. and  (85.165.228.44) and. Note that in Eduardo e Cristina the IP restored the same type of edits made by another confirmed sock —compare with. While I know a checkuser cannot publicly link an IP to an account, given this user's previous history of prolific sock creation and the use of multiple IPs, I'm requesting a checkuser to look for sleeper accounts which may have been created since the last lot were blocked in late June 2016. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the IP, is it not possible to run a checkuser on one of the most recent socks, e.g. whose edits the IP restored to see if other named accounts have been registered since the last block? The actual current IP is irrelevant since (according to the archived SPI)  appears to have used multiple other IPs beginning with 95, 87, 82, 80 and 79 in the past. Voceditenore (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to debate the appropriateness of broad vs. narrow transcription. I filed this report because you showed up to two very obscure articles and twice restored the edits of a prolific and very disruptive sockmaster. Pure coincidence? Personally, I find that a bit of a stretch, but that's for the closing administrator to decide. Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Goodness gracious. I have no connection to the offending user. It is hardly surprising that a legitimate user would edit transcriptions to include syntactic gemination, as it is – contrary to Voceditenore's assertion – phonemic in Italian standard pronunciation and therefore appropriate for Wikipedia's transcriptions of Italian pronunciation. With all languages, there are speakers who don't use standard pronunciation, and I am of course aware that many native speakers of Italian don't use standard pronunciation. It is, however, not controversial that standard pronunciation is what Wikipedia should transcribe.

There are two Italian pronunciation dictionaries online, namely DOP and DiPI. Neither acknowledges the absence of syntactic gemination after the word e, so the case is closed as to what constitutes Italian standard pronunciation. And again, it is inarguably phonemic. 85.165.228.44 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody is debating the appropriateness of broad vs. narrow transcription. What I did was point out that syntactic gemination forms part of a broad/phonemic, not just a narrow/phonetic, transcription of Italian standard pronunciation. 85.165.228.44 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've declined the CU request. A sleeper check through the IP is a backdoor way of disclosing the registered account's IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. By your logic, we'd be periodically rechecking just in case there was a new account. That's an unreasonable and unwarranted burden on the CUs.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * IP stale. Closing. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

There are already many confirmed socks of this master, but no report has ever been filed. I found four new ones and decided there are too many not to have a case. See below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * I can't tell which sockmaster by which sockmaster BTW, as the suspected sock in Sockpuppet investigations/ZenZung's case,, was CU confirmed as the sock of Ragaricus instead, according to the tag.


 * Tnasiver was reverting the edit by (CU sock of ZenZung), so the tag of Tnasiver seem right.


 * Back to explaining the ips, both ips ( and ), had the same behaviour of reverting the edit by, a stale ip since mid of December, that adding IPA, using ref that exactly the same as ZenZung/Miaowmiaowmew/whatever the name of the sock, so ip from both side were in fact block evasion. But since 151.48 are not stale, so 151.48 range is worth to file SPI.


 * Lastly, another ip had asked me to revert the edit by ZenZung/Miaowmiaowmew/whatever the name of the sock in User talk:Matthew hk. Despite RBI/BRI is legit to do so, block evasion is not. However, that ip is also stale. Matthew hk (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Add two more ip, who exactly reverting the edit of Miaowmiaowmew, as well as reverting the edit by Matthew hk (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I recently remarked an unexpectedly high rate of activity on artices with italian and spanish IPA transcriptions, involving suckpuppets and anonymous users activity. Even if technical details proved no relation between them, I see a lot of similarities with the cases of Lascava and Viviocon:

1) Subject: italian and sometimes spanish IPA;

2) Behaviour: handful of sockpuppets making few edits each;

3) Inclination to use word-puzzles as username (Tnasiver is the reverse spelling of Trevisan, one of the articles under attack; Viviocon is a reverse syllabification of Convivio, one of the articles that user edited; Lascava edited LASscia o radopia and CAVA de' Tirreni);

4) Unusual hostinate insistence always on the same topic.

Hard to believe this is only coincidence.

Horst Hof (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Viviocon is the sockmaster of another SPI,, so may need a look which faction he belongs to. As i stated, it seem one faction reverting another. Matthew hk (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Matthew hk, please check the following diffs:
 * Special:DIff/861112889 made by user Mongales, one of the socks of the Lascava group
 * Special:DIff/872672257 made by an anonymous from 5.170. IP range (same range as of the message you received)
 * Special:DIff/877434678 made by an anonymous from 151.48. IP range (like those of your report)
 * and compare this to what Viviocon group was asking for in their messages (summarizing they asked to include sign ɱ in IPA help page)
 * The direction is the same, changing m to ɱ. IMHO all of these edits come from the same hands.
 * Horst Hof (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
IP edits too old. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These accounts targeted systematically the same articles as the already confirmed socks of Ragaricus removing legitimate references for IPA trasncriptions. See the revision history of the article Andrea Vavassori for example, Grirennate did almost the same changes as User:Vryynv (confirmed of Ragaricus), User:Smoreade and User:Cmerulius. Other dormant or undetected socks are possible. In case of no technical relation will be found, behavioural analysis may be enough to establish a unique paternity. Horst Hof (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Horst Hof (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * I would say hard to tell by behaviour. Regarding your revert in Andrés Molteni which related to this SPI, the link was added by, another blocked sockmaster, and then reverted by , the sockmaster of this SPI. After ban wave and revert back and forth by admin and new sock and other unrelated users, the link was restored by you and then remove again by . Yes, Suecaillam may be a sock or just a meat sock of the IPA edit war. I suggest chopping IPA and start a centralized discussion somewhere in order to form a binding consensus. Catching sock on BOTH SIDE of the edit war and then restore to either side is not a solution to the problem, form a binding consensus first is a start of a solution. Matthew hk (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Matthew hk, I fully agree with you that consensus is the way to go, but I just want to clarify the rationale of my edits. Even if I'm not familiar at all with IPA stuff, before reverting I checked the linked sources and I found that that provided by Miaowmiaowmew is a legitimate reference and his/her edit is consistent with what the source states. On the contrary, the edits made by the other group of socks/meatpuppets are aimed to remove that legitimate source and slightly modify the IPA transcription not providing alternative sources for that. If I'm not wrong an edit should be evaluated by itself, not by the author that made it, and it seemed to me reasonable to keep the edit that provided a legitimate source. Horst Hof (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ + . Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (stale since December)
 * (stale since December)
 * (stale since December)
 * (stale since December)
 * (stale since December)
 * (stale since December)
 * (stale since December)
 * (stale since December)
 * (stale since December)


 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Yet the same ip range from reported sock suspect. Yet targeting the article with citations dipionline.it. However, new pattern of removal, which 5.171.1.42's edit was reverted by an admin, ip from 5.171 range pretended as bad hand account, 151.48 pretended as good hand account to "undo" the vandalism, but in fact reverted to 5.171.1.42 version (here is the comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Davide_Astori&type=revision&diff=883165234&oldid=877271841) Matthew hk (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment. 5.171.1.0/24 has been blocked by . 151.48.66.77 and 151.48.200.31 have not been blocked. 151.48.66.77 is not stale. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  19:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Also. The 151.48 was mentioned in the previous case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattLongCT (talk • contribs) 2019-02-13T19:41:13 (UTC)


 * The 151.48 range seem quite active and may have collateral damage. However, it seem more ip than innocent as block evasion, a number of edits are changing IPA to another value but did not provide any source, thus adding them to the list also. Matthew hk (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-close comment: especially this edit by 151.48.212.51 that targeting dipionline.it. Such edit was also observed by a now stale ip on the same page Stefano Ianni. Matthew hk (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked long and hard at that 5.171.1.0/24 range, so I only anon blocked and only for a week. There was nothing constructive for over a month, so I think I avoided collateral damage. Dloh cier ekim    (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If I looked at the 151.48, I saw no joy-- too much collateral damage. Someone more experienced with ranges could look at that. Dloh cier ekim    (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same behaviour as previous socks, targeting IPA transcriptions and removing reliable sources from one of the articles (Andreas Seppi) already object of other confirmed socks from the same group (Rchamaeceras, Special:Diff/871692755). Horst Hof (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Also discussed in User talk:Matthew hk. An ip user (see Special:Diff/882090859 at User talk:Athaenara) which was from the blocked range in the previous filing, had declared he was. Natzione, in turn, was globally locked by global steward and it-wiki admin and bureaucrat, for "Long-term abuse". Not sure it will bring up a bigger fish of Italian LTA log or not.

The aforementioned ip only have one edit, which impossible to have diff comparison, which that range had many edits involved in removing dipionline.it and/or altering IPA. While Natzione, had involved in unsourced change of IPA, despite none of them involved in removing dipionline.it. Not sure it was actually a case of WP:tag team or not. Matthew hk (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest a behavioural analisys in order to establish a possible (in my opinion quite obvious) relation with the user that attacked Ohnoitsjamie in this message Special:Diff/881761386 that was related to italian IPA issues (again) and that comes from the already involved IP range 5.170.x.x. Please also note that a similar aggressive message was left on Favonian talk page (see here: Special:DIff/877241290), once more related to italian IPA, with the almost identical wording as that targeting Ohnoitsjamie, coming from a user that has been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts but without specifying which other accounts it was related to. Horst Hof (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty obvious to me as well. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Only edits were from a currently blocked proxy. T. Canens (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits are clearly similar to past socks', and using a proxy is also interesting. . GABgab 15:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same edits on same articles as Suecaillam and Eleganms, two confirmed socks of this farm. Horst Hof (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Horst Hof (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * Well, I still need time to figure out the change of ɛ/e sound, which one is correct. I would just boldly chop the IPA even it was cited then, since I doubt one source is enough as a claim, also stopping the edit war with sock. May be I will re-inserted if there is more than 3 citations. Matthew hk (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty doubtful about your approach but will not interfere. In my opinion a better approach would be asking some trusted users with familiarity  with the matter what they think about the reliability of the given source. In any case we can also ask if they know more sources to confirm or challenge the only source currently given. Any comment is very welcome. Horst Hof (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Just add two more citation instead of just restore to single citation from dipionline.it. For my native Chinese/Cantonese, there is many citation available for the "correct" transliteration, sometimes a lengthy research paper on single word (yes for each of the Yale, pinyin and other method of transliteration as well as using Beijing or Taiwan or Nanjing as standard or in Cantonese case, using the pronunciation in 100 year old book or using the modern Hong Kong pronunciation as standard or Guangzhou as standard). I knew Italian was also standardized, (according to Italian language), so it should have more citation and offline book for the "correct" pronunciation and IPA without original research by the native user. Matthew hk (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * related to other recent socks. Frankly I suspect there may be more than one socker lurking around these parts. On a mixture of behavioural and technical evidence, blocked as a sock of someone. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Once again, a new wave of possible socks targeting references of italian IPA, exactly the same behaviour of all the other socks of this farm. One edit each, all of these accounts have been created yesterday between 21:00 and 22:00. Horst Hof (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Horst Hof (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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
✅

. Have you found anything cross wiki or is this just on en.wiki? If there is something cross wiki then we need to notify the stewards. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * is ❌ to . See also Sockpuppet investigations/Iuscaogdan. A likely connection to 84101e40247 exists as being Ragaricus' master. for more opinions.
 * To be honest I never checked on other wikis, I will have a look at that next days. I only can say that recently another new account appeared and started editing on italian IPA related articles (this one) but suddenly was globally blocked by a steward (User:Vituzzu) for long-term abuse even if they only contributed here on en.wiki and their edits didn't appear disruptive. I wanted to discuss this with Matthew hk on his talk page (see here), may be that steward knows something that may help finding cross-wiki connections. On the other hand I see a lot of behavioural similarities with Lascava's case and, even if techincal details don't allow to establish a sure relation, behaviour is so similar that I would exclude a mere coincidence. Horst Hof (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on behavioral evidence, I find it likely that is a sockpuppet of. Ragaricus is obviously someone's sockpuppet. I'm not going to waste my time re-tagging these hundreds of accounts though, and will just re-tag the Ragaricus account. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets





 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same behaviour as previous sock broods: removal of legitimate sources they are not happy with, sometimes slightly modifying IPA transcription. All of these accounts have been created between 8 and 9 March, few edits and then abandoned. Horst Hof (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

 * This sockmaster is a proxy hopper, making checking tedious and much less likely to uncover other accounts. My use of "confirmed" below is therefore a slight stretch.
 * Group 1 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other and previous socks:
 * Fooloolo
 * Undoovarz
 * SoloIander
 * Group 2 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other but apparently ❌ technically to previous socks:
 * Interice
 * Kiarachos
 * Balexk
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All of these users registered on 25 March 2019 between 10:31 and 10:39. All of them did a few edits, among which, one aimed to remove the same IPA transcription sources already target of Ragaricus' sock farm (see this, this, this, this). Similarly to Ragaricus' socks, their goal seem to be removing the edits of Miaowmiaowmew, another confirmed sockpuppeteer, even if these are considered as legitimate edits by users familiar with IPA stuff. Three out of four of them also requested their user page deletion. It is possible that check may fail in finding thechnical relation between these accounts as the sockpuppeteer seems to have become more cautious, but behavioural elements seems to me clear enough to establish a common origin. Horst Hof (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of possible more socks. These last two targeted the article Val Gardena, where Kuronossu pretended to undo the edit of Latrendeorg but diffs clearly shows a different situation and among other almost pointless changes, what disappeared is the IPA transcription source again. In addition the article was already targeted by one of the IPs bocked last month by Berean Hunter (and reverted by him), that actually did the same as Latrendeorg and Kuronossu (check here). Horst Hof (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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

 * For confirm and a sleeper check. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ from the rest:
 * As usual, multiple proxies/webhosts/VPNs were in use. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All socks tagged. Closing. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ from the rest:
 * As usual, multiple proxies/webhosts/VPNs were in use. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All socks tagged. Closing. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ from the rest:
 * As usual, multiple proxies/webhosts/VPNs were in use. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All socks tagged. Closing. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As usual, multiple proxies/webhosts/VPNs were in use. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All socks tagged. Closing. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As usual, multiple proxies/webhosts/VPNs were in use. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All socks tagged. Closing. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See below. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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
Group 1 are ✅ to the master

Group 2 are ✅ to each other (looking for the correct master of these)

Group 2 are to  that was reported in the Lascava SPI case. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  09:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Group 1 tagged, group 2 left with default tags. Vetjan has behaviour intersection with Ejubbe from group 2 and different from the other two. The other two accounts of group 2 are behaviourally indistinguishable from Mstei and Iestem of group 1. Closing.  qedk ( t  桜  c ) 19:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These single purpose accounts are suspect due to behavior of vandalizing Italian IPA transcriptions or fiddling with spacing in Italian topics:
 * 1) Galimama,
 * 2) Ondovar,
 * 3) Tsitneias,
 * 4) CaliforniaED,
 * 5) Wazbupuo,
 * 6) Muratobe,
 * 7) Terranolbi,  Jehochman Talk 13:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC) and 14:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

please add any relevant comments. I see that you've been reverting much of this user's vandalism. Thank you for doing that. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Really tiring, some edits seem to be made by the same guy over and over. But their IPA “corrections” are definitely incorrect. [[File:Italy.png]] イヴァン スクルージ 九十八 （会話）[[File:Italy.png]] 14:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

has also been emailed evidence regarding. Admins, check this deleted diff:  We need a bunch of eyes on this situation. When blocking these socks, disable email please. Also, don't click any external links the user posts or sends. They are trying to discover IP addresses and dox Wikipedians. T&S has been notified but they seem unable to stop this. Jehochman Talk 14:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I need one of our clever checkusers to place a rangeblock, if possible. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm happy to take a look at this if no one else gets there before me. It will be in a few hours though. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This editor seems to be spinning up new accounts quite frequently.  The autoblock isn't stopping them.  We need to investigate whether a range block would help.  If you get any information that would help identify the user, such as an ISP, please notify T&S that there's an active case, and they should file an abuse complaint and see if the ISP will terminate service to the user. Jehochman Talk 14:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to divide the results into groups.

Group 1, all confirmed to each other, on a proxy, looks like 84101e40247:

Group 2, likely each other and likely 84101e40247:

Group 3, confirmed to each other, and possibly 84101e40247 (actually it looks likely but please double-check behaviour):

I've mentioned before that it's possible there's more than one socker involved in these topics - frankly I still can't rule that out. There's widespread use of open proxies, some country-hopping, and apparently, some UA spoofing. Some IP blocks have been put down, but as with any proxy users, it's not going to be completely effective. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the excellent work. I recommend blocking and tagging all of these to the 84191e49247 master.  I checked behavior before reporting them.  Jehochman Talk 19:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, all blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)