Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bedriczwaleta/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (original master)


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

Original master was blocked for six months because of disruptive behavior. This user was created five days after the master's block. I noticed that it's behavior is similar to the master. Evidence are: After it's first block, i thought that it was willing to improve. However, the edits show that it (sadly) still shows some unacceptable behavior. It is the same person as in the beginning of June.  SMB   99   thx   Email!  02:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Obsession with page protection (master)
 * Adding unsourced material or original research to the economy articles (master)
 * Demanding behavior (master)
 * When there are no reports, instead of using ";" parameter (No dates), it removes that parameter (master)
 * Addition of unneeded information on coat of arms articles (master)
 * More evidence:
 * Unneeded changes on the flag articles (master)
 * (master)
 * I express regret and shock while i reviewed these edits for creation of this sockpuppet investigation page. It shows lack of improvement from the master.  SMB   99   thx   Email!  02:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also forgot that both two said that i called it a 'good user'. I'll say this: No, i never called them as a "good user". When i said I'm preparing you to give a warm welcome to the Wikipedia community as long as you are doing it good and right and keep improving from bad behaviors i do not mean that i called it a good user. I meant to give it a warm welcome if it keeps doing right and follow the rules. I do not intend to praise it. I just want to warn it to keep up following the rules and doing the right thing.  SMB   99   thx   Email!  05:51, 20 June 2020 (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

 * , if there is anything you want to achieve on Wikipedia, you will have to do it the old-fashioned way--by following the rules. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - The account and IP have been blocked. I haven't looked at the checkuser data but behaviorally it's a match. Could a clerk move and close the case as appropriate (or just close the thing)? Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:L235, I'd say that the technical evidence is overwhelming, and the behavioral evidence clear. I'm not calling it a perfect match because of a little thing that I can't comment on here. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what's going on here (I've gotten emails from two people about this) but presently both the account and IP are blocked and there's nothing further to do here. Case moved, closing. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (suspected meatpuppet, likely unrelated)
 * (suspected meatpuppet, likely unrelated)
 * (suspected meatpuppet, likely unrelated)


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

The 186.111 IPs are coming from Argentine ISPs, but both of them use Polish flags after their signatures: 186.111.139.203, 186.111.135.18. The master uses these kind of signatures in es:Usuario discusión:45.164.173.5. IP 185.66.252.219 used opinionated edit summaries on the Wikipedia sandbox, in which 186.111.135.18 did the same. Both three IPs have the some issue with Nicholas Velasquez in which all three of them they want to remove parameters from the chart (despite it was needed for the script in the template especially) and all three of their edits got reverted by Nicholas because of that reason - edit from 185.66.252.219 and edit from 186.111.139.203. 186.111.135.18 did not edit the chart directly, instead added it into the talkpage. I think 185.66 IP is ❌, since they came from different countries. However, they share the same interests (editing medical cases charts primarily) and they don't really accept what other users do at them (they tend to use strong language, when interacting with other users - diffs are, , and ). WP:MEAT is more appropriate for 185.66 IP in relations to the 186.111 IPs. With what i have described, this is why i suspect 185.66 IP of being a meatpuppet (and led me to add 185.66 IP into the report), and it is definitely not a sockpuppet in this case.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  00:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Requesting CU.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  00:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I should not have requested the CU. My mistakes.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  01:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By looking from edit history of the template, i just realized that 185.66 edited first, then Nicholas Velazquez undid the edit by 185.66 and 186.111.139.203 reverted that undo. In this case, 186.111 is the meat, not 185.66. But, 185.66 IP and 186.111 IPs geolocates into different countries and there is no canvassing from 185.66 AFAIK, so i'm not sure. I'm going to ping to help with this case.  SMB9  9thx   my edits  10:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

While i want to sleep, I want to give more diffs why i consider 186.111 IPs because not just for similar signatures, but: I think that's enough diffs.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  13:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing data or parameters in the templates without an edit summary: original account (sock)
 * Test edits on the user talk page: master (sock)
 * For the 186.111.139.203 IP: (master)

Update: 186.111.128.0/20 IP range just got blocked by Drmies, likely because of this edit by 186.111.135.164 (note the signature (but with the flag commented out), and death threat against Nicholas). This SPI should be closed by now, but because the IP recently sent a death threat towards Nicholas i believe this SPI should be closed with an action taken against the master and the IP range, which is revoking their talk page access basing on the diffs provided here that the IP range is a duck. Since 185.66.250.0/20 IP edits are mostly on good faith lately and no obvious signs of doing things as a meatpuppet (NOTE: these edits here and here has me concerned, but likely done more as a good faith rather than bad faith), there is no need to take action against them. Pinging, who declined the CU request (my mistake).  SMB9 9thx   my edits  12:51, 30 August 2020 (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

 * - checkusers will not connect IPs to named accounts. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted by the filer, Drmies rangeblocked 186.111.128.0/20 and the 185.66 IP geolocates to the other side of the world so I don't think they're related. Noting for the record that I am unsure whether 186.111.128.0/20 is actually Bedriczwaleta. The available evidence (shared use of Polish, IP is from the same country as a past suspected IP sock, interest in COVID templates) is strongly suggestive but I would not consider it conclusive, so future sockpuppet cases under Bedriczwaleta should use behavioral evidence from these IPs with caution. For now, though, it's an academic question since the suspected sock range is blocked. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The IP geolocates into Argentina (as in case of previous suspected IP socks), uses their own talk page (User talk: space) for proposals (new IP, older IP, master) and unexplained changes on COVID-19 templates (new IP, older IP). They are also editing on the draft space, all of which they are working on the COVID-19 templates: (new IP, older IP). Based on that evidence, they look like a duck to me.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  02:37, 12 September 2020 (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

 * Looks like them, blocked 1 month. Didn't do a rangeblock since their IP seems fairly static right now. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Quickly returned to editing after the block ended. The Myanmar edit in particular screams.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  23:30, 16 October 2020 (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

 * Nice of them to make it so obvious. Re-blocked for a year. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The IP shares the same geolocation to the previous IP socks. COVID-19 template editing, and the way the IP talks on User talk:Bumm13 (note the references to the "Type Design") makes this.  Mario Jump  83!  02:14, 23 March 2021 (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

 * Now blocked, closing. GABgab 22:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)