Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Altenmann/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets


More socks are a distinct possibility.

Evidence submitted by Sander Säde

 * Both Timurite and Dzied Bulbash edit the same articles, from similar viewpoint
 * Schutzmannschaft Front Bataillon 36 Arensburg:  (in both cases summary "rvv" when reverting changes obviously not vandalism),
 * Bronze Soldier of Tallinn:  (both are edits to the name of the statue; Timurite also used extremely offensive edit summary)
 * Anti-Estonian sentiment:
 * Both vote in same AfD's and same way
 * Articles for deletion/Siberian Wikipedia (2 nomination):
 * Articles for deletion/Lenin's Hanging Order (2 nomination):
 * They have an identical daily edit pattern

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.  - in this way all Estonian contributors are mutual sock and meat puppets, especially the ones who randomly pop up put of the blue, such as User:Vihelik, and revert others. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By default anyone who joins Wikipedia "pops out of the blue". Do you know of any other way one could do it gradually? --Vihelik (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, cool graphs of daily edit patterns! How did you make it? By hand, or some wikipedia tool? Timurite (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
All I can add to the evidence is that my perception is the same, that the users' patterns match closely and the responsible editor has used the multitude of accounts for ill purposes. After a ban on the socks, further investigation is in order to find out other possible accounts of the editor. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Sander Säde  15:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I see sufficient behavioral evidence, between edit summaries, contributions, and activity times, to warrant a checkuser. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is being looked into by several checkusers; results may be delayed somewhat as we discuss the findings. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

✅ the following accounts:


 * - master account

All of the accounts are indefinitely blocked, including Altenmann; further review and discussion is required to determine the appropriate block length, so he is indeffed for now. Please note also that Altenmann is an administrator, and his administrator privileges are being addressed directly by a motion of the Arbitration Committee. The socking has been going on over a span of years and has affected multiple discussions in many areas.

I have also indefinitely blocked and, which are prior account names of Altenmann, to prevent their reuse. Risker (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Case renamed to /Altenmann per standard practice. All accounts have been blocked by Risker and will be tagged by myself. NW ( Talk ) 20:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

05 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

— KC9TV 08:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment Well, Mukadderat was clearly an Altenmann sock, he even went in and added a contributions list to that account's userpage after he was unblocked. And in 2008 Mukadderat edited the userpage of ComradeTimur, so that looks like a pretty strong WP:DUCK to me. Timurite was blocked and tagged by NuclearWarfare as a sock of Altenmann, so that one is clearly a sock. Not too sure what this SPI is supposed to accomplish but if it's just to determine the connection to ComradeTimur than that's an obvious Duck. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * His other sock-puppet notwithstanding, but does reviving blanked user-pages of his old blocked sock-puppets give grounds for a re-block? — KC9TV 17:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that, whatever Admin reviews this will have to make that call. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added Laudak and Dzied Bulbash - the latter for completeness - already noted in closed investigation. Both socks by Altenmann's own admission - see user_talk:RHaworth. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - 2 of the 3 accounts are, plus we need more evidence than a link to an accusation to look into any possible abuse. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Insufficient information to proceed. Closing.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  19:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

13 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I checked both the users on Editor Interaction Anlyser and noticed that the gap of edits on the Afd pages [|here] are few hours. It particularly seems that Altenmann support his nomination using the other sock account. Mridu 17:54, 13 April 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

 * The evidence is (a) weak, and (b) false (the gap is between 10 minutes and 13 days). I'm closing this case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)