Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amoruso/Archive

Evidence submitted by Supreme Deliciousness
On 11th April Amuroso was banned indefinitely from the Arab-Israeli conflict:

The day after on 12th April user Sipio made its first edit.

Amurosos last edit was on 17th April

Sipio continued to edit the day after on 18th April:

Looking at Sipios first edits at wikipedia, it doesn't look like he is a new user.

Both accounts edit within the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel, West Bank, Mount Hermon, Golan Mountains, Golan related, etc etc as can bee seen by quickly looking at both account contributions.

Amuroso have used puppets before: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be more comfortable with a checkuser. for CU attention; we still have a couple of weeks where checkuser would be valid. NW ( Talk ) 17:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Currently available technical evidence shows that the accounts resolve to the same country, but no more than that. Behavioral evidence will be key. -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing behaviors and patterns do indicate sockpuppetry here, and Sipio has been indefinitely blocked with autoblock disabled. That being said, it's been three weeks since Sipio has made an edit and three months since Amoruso has made an edit. I am inclined not to implement an autoblock nor block Amoruso due to the timing of the edits (i.e. a block would seem more punitive than preventative). I also have no comment as to whether or not any violations of WP:ARBPIA has occurred, as I do not work in the field of Arbitration Enforcement. If you feel that a violation of the sanctions prescribed there has occurred, then I recommend taking it to WP:AE for enforcement. –MuZemike 22:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Supreme Deliciousness
After the last SPI was finished: I reverted the edits Amoruso had made with his sock against his topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Amorusos sock had previously said about the CIA source: "The opening table is using factbook as the source, and check again it says: "22,072 km2" Factbook is the mostly used source for those opening tables, so don't edit what the source say." and he had repeatedly re added this in the article from the CIA factbook source:

I reverted the edits by Amorusos sock, the Sipio account.

And right after my rv, an IP shows up and reverts everything I did, IP re ads the same cia numbers that Amoruso used with his sock and also defends the CIA source at the talkpage: "Supreme Deliciousness take a look at the source https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html it says "22,072", every article use this as their source"

The IP also contacts another user Hope&Act3!: the same user Amoruso contacted with his sock:

I would like to point out that if its him its the second time now Amoruso have used a sock to violate his topic ban. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * IP blocked as an open proxy, so the case is moot now. ( X! ·  talk )  · @917  · 21:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per request on talk, I'll disclose that it's pretty clear that they are the same person, and I would have blocked either way. ( X! ·  talk )  · @943  · 21:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Supreme Deliciousness
Two previous SPIs: show that Amoruso showed up twice with socks to the Geography of Israel article to put together numbers for Israeli-occupied Golan and East Jerusalem with Israels, to present them as if they were a part of Israel.

Now a new account LibiBamizrach shows up there and pushes the same pov, removing that Golan Heights is occupied, presenting it as if it was a part of Israel:

LibiBamizrach also edited the History of the Jews in the Land of Israel article: 4 years ago Amoruso also edited the same article:

LibiBamizrach also edited the "Rescue attempt" section in the Nachshon Wachsman article: 3 years ago Amoruso also edited the same section in that article:

LibiBamizrach also supported at the Ahmed Yassins talkpage that the picture of Yassin in a wheelchair should stay in the article: 4 years ago Amoruso also supported at the talkpage that the same picture of Ahmed Yassin in a wheelchair should stay: Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

People can move. Besides the evidence I added before, he also have the same level of English:

"understand the problem with include this quotes"

"just wanted to say: you have looked lately at new SPI?" 

compare the english with Amorusos sock:

"Need help to fight wih PoV"

He has the same level of English, + the previous editing behaviour similarities, and he is obviously not a new user.

In this edit he talks about a "cleanstart",, and then he contact an arb admin here:

Which is exactly what "cleanstart" says: "You are generally advised not to resume editing such areas without disclosure. However some users try to do so. You may want to check (in confidence) with a Checkuser or other member of the functionaries team if you want to resume editing patterns or wiki areas under a new account, where concealment of the old account may be seen negatively. Failure to disclose can be seen negatively if it does come out later."

Right after, this SPI gets deleted for several days.

So what is his previous account? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * In light of the SPI results, the latest arguments seem to be fishing. The fact that Amoruso's edit history was gone over in such detail that comments he/she made 4 years ago were compared to things the LibiBamizrach has said or done recently, is kind of troublesome to me. WP is not a battlefield with wars to be "won" by taking out supposed-new contributors who edit with a different POV than others.  SPI is also not a place to "expose" a FreshStart users previous account (assuming they had one).  Even if they did have one, only certain admins might need to know about what the previous account was -- the point of a new account is a fresh start, not a "badge of shame".  -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 14:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A banned user is a banned user and if he is a sock of a banned user, then why shouldn't edits from 4 years ago be brought up if it shows a connection with a banned user? What does this have to do with a "battlefield" or "wars" ? Also its assumption of bad faith to claim me adding behavioral evidence is "fishing".

A cleanstart attempt does not allow a banned editor to come back. In this edit LibiBamizrach talks about a cleanstart:[] I noticed that LibiBamizrach contacted Nsaum75 and said: "thx for the welcome": ... but on LibiBamizrach talkpage there is no post from Nsaum75. Why is Nsaum75 sending of wiki messages to this "new" account outside of wikipedia? Maybe its not Amoruso considering the CU. But its an edit warrior who is clearly pushing a strong and non neutral pov and is familiar with wikipedia, so if this is a former edit warrior/pov pusher with a new account, then this is highly problematic, since likely sanctions against him would have been tougher with his old account. And the new account might be a way to avoid sanctions. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are ways to handle "account" switching for the purpose of evasion, hence why I said that certain admins may need to know about previous accounts, so that if sanctions are needed, they can be addressed accordingly. But its not the "right" of every Wikipedian to know if someone is a new account or not.  In the end everything resolves, and an editor who abuses the system will be caught again regardless of what incarnations they take.  Remember, no editor is unbiased. The problem is when we see ourselves as neutral but everyone else as a POV pusher.  But anyhow, the checkuser came back as not related and on opposite sides of the world. Its going to be hard to overturn that outcome. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 16:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that 1 or 2 admins who never edit within the A-I conflict are not gonna make any difference if they know because they are not gonna follow up on the behavior of a former disruptive user to see if he is abusing the clean start. Its other editors who edit within the same topic area who need to know who it is, because its only they that can make sure that he isn't abusing Wikipedia. This is really a perfect way of gaming the system if it indeed is a former editor with a new account. What do you mean by "we see ourselves as neutral but everyone else as a POV pusher." Are you referring to someone in particular? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If 'a perfect way of gaming the system' is moving to the opposite side of the planet, I think Wikipedia will survive with the 1 editor willing to make that effort to start anew. Please move on from this fishing expedition and find something useful to do on wikipedia, beyond endless SPI reports. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats a straw man comment from you, I said above that considering the CU its maybe not Amoruso, but considering that its someone who is familiar with Wikipedia, and the fact that he brings up clean start here:, and the temporary deletion of this SPI, lead me to believe that its not a new user. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's not Amoruso, as teh CU shows and as you concede, we're done here. Users are entitled to a clean start, and we don't fish around using SPI or CU. Go find something useful to do, that will actually improve the encyclopedia, rather than trolling around SPI and WP:AE, spoiling for a fight. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please No personal attacks and Assumptions of bad faith. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ to, they geolocate to complete opposite sides of the planet. Tiptoety  talk 06:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that the two users are unrelated. Further matters with either account can be dealt with through other processes, including WP:AE. NW ( Talk ) 04:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)