Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyperuspapyrus/Archive

12 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Behavioral evidence - Dolphin s54 has only 23 edits, of which 15 are to pages Cyperuspapyrus also edited (though the nature of the page being linked to may also explain it). Dolphin s54 recreated SuperKombat_World_Grand_Prix_2 shortly after SuperKombat_World_Grand_Prix_II was deleted. The nature of the recreation strongly suggests that Dolphin s54 is a sock of someone, and the behavioral evidences suggests that is Cyperuspapyrus. Monty 845  01:06, 12 July 2011 (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
Highly to be the same user. Frank &#124;  talk  02:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the sock. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

16 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Cyperuspapyrus was blocked for sockpuppetry here. Defineterminology registered two days later and immediately started editing similar articles to Cyperpapyrus AND creating new articles: here. I'm not sure if a checkuser is necessary. Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Defineterminology just removed an AfD template here. Cyperpapyrus also removed templates, including the removal of this AfD template here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2011 (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 we're going to indef the master (or extend the block) I'd like to double check this. Endorsing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * the same as the above four:
 * Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well. Blocked and tagged all the socks; blocked the master indefinitely. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the same as the above four:
 * Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well. Blocked and tagged all the socks; blocked the master indefinitely. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well. Blocked and tagged all the socks; blocked the master indefinitely. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well. Blocked and tagged all the socks; blocked the master indefinitely. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

17 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Romania vs Italy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wako-Pro_World_Grand_Prix_2011:_Romania_vs_Italy&limit=500&action=history RohG ??   &middot; &#32; 10:47, 17 July 2011 (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

 * First, that IP hasn't edited since March. It's very stale, and blocking it now would serve no purpose. Second, CU generally won't link an IP to an account. Relist if the IP becomes active again. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

19 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This account was listed on my talk page. It's possible, so I'm endorsing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:56, 19 July 2011 (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
Appears to be ❌. TN X Man 13:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Alright then, closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

22 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Account was created one day after the master was blocked for indefinitely and started to edit exactly the same articles in the same topics (kickbox, handball, football, tennis) as the sockmaster did – with the exception of 2011 BCR Open Romania Ladies – Singles and 2011 BCR Open Romania Ladies – Doubles which were created after the master got blocked, therefore it could not contribute to them. However, the main article of the tournament (2011 BCR Open Romania Ladies) was made and developed by the blocked master and the newly created user also actively edited it.

There are also pages like this, which got no attention by other users before and was edited exclusively by the master until the date of the block, when the new user turned up. This article was abandoned since a while as well, and was modified only by the master and its identified puppets recently, joined by the above listed user after the master got blocked.

Moreover, the freshly created account shows language/behavioural similarities with the blocked master here and here. Thehoboclown (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2011 (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 are the same:
 * TN X Man 14:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * blocked and tagged; marking as closed. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 15:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 14:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * blocked and tagged; marking as closed. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 15:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

24 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The account was registered just a few hours after the previous puppet (User:Ciciolinanadia) got blocked and started to edit the very same articles immediately. Some of the edit summaries were the same as well, like here and here. Also, the new user went to contribuite to this article, that was only edited by the sockmaster and its puppets earlier, and used exactly the same edit summary as the former accounts. Thehoboclown (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Cyperuspapyrus (aka me), was old user and I never created problems on Wikipedia. I have about 50 times more articles than Thehoboclown. Hoboclown, with all the respect you probably hate Romanians! i dont care of policy, ok? dont involve me in your hate because you lost Transilvania. because i cant believe you can envy me because i wrote Marius Vizer is Romanian and you corrected again as Austrian. he was born in Romania and has house here in Oradea! other thing you did not like is that i created special section for EHF CL of Women, but you could have told me. WHY NO TALK WITH ME AND ACTING LIKE A NERD REPORTING ME HERE?

all this started because my user was blocked for 1 week, UNDESERVED, because some guys were trying to make points on our back and to hint positions in wikipedia. we, honest writers and volunteers, had deleted articles. we did not even swear or something, "offending" was more to say.

so some guys reported me, probably same guy but from different ips (who is probably also hobo). he has hate on Romanians and on kickboxing writers!

if you dont leave me alone, i will become a destroyer, not a writer and nice people. because i am abused! please allow me to write again with Cyperuspapyrus, i give you my word i will behave and i will control my language and i will behave!

sorry i wrote here but i did not know how to defend

Jeffgoodman16 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you don't agree with a decision, you can use the article's talk page freely to share your thoughts. You did not. I don't want to evolve this problem here, as it is not the place, but will answer all your question on your talk page in a civil way, as it should be. Anyway, sockpuppetry proven by the user itself. Thehoboclown (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will try to review my behaviour and to behave. but my user being blocked indefinetively was not fair! You are not involved in that, but I do not like that you keep reporting me. First of all, I am not guilty, those guys were abusers and deleting they destroyed our work. I promise to all from Wikipedia that I will behave! Please tolerate me in this case and unblock Cyperuspapyrus and you can ban all other users; I will try to be more familiarized with this site

Jeffgoodman16 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC) (Cyperuspapyrus)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Admitted sock, but no sleepers. TN X Man 14:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged this sock. The pledge to "review my behaviour and to behave" is completely unconvincing to me, considering the extensive sockpuppet abuse, the personal attacks above ("you probably hate Romanians", "ACTING LIKE A NERD"), the threats ("if you dont leave me alone, i will become a destroyer"), and denial of responsibility ("I never created problems on Wikipedia", "my user was blocked for 1 week, UNDESERVED", "because i am abused", "I am not guilty"). If this editor was sincere, they would request an unblock on their main account's talk page rather than creating sockpuppets, they would act in a civil manner, and accept responsibility for past behavior. Instead, this looks more like they are heading to a full ban. --  At am a  頭 23:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

17 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The same target of edits, example Oleola (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2011 (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 are Cyperuspapyrus:
 * TN X</b> Man 18:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * DQ blocked; I tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * DQ blocked; I tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

27 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Blanking talk page just like a master. Editing articles of footballers from Romanian clubs using the same two websites as master: soccerway and transfermarkt. The same mistaken belief expressed in the summaries, that transfermarkt show official transfer fee. Oleola (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2012 (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
Unfortunately, everything from the archive is. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 23:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the sock on behavioral grounds. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

08 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Target of edits is the same, focused on stuff related to Romanian football. There is a huge similarity in editing behavior between Dancewithwolfves and sockmaster. Especially in the unusual controversial edits he made like removing the whole career statistics tables without any word of commentary: and  or  He is also removing external links from the articles while keeping only his favourite website - transfermarkt just like sockmaster:  and. When changing the player club he is not adding a redirect reference in the article, but instead of it he is only posting a link in the edit summary: and. Also he is blanking his talk page without archiving as well as sockmaster.

Another account seems to be Marcu34. Dancewithwolfves removed a while ago exactly the same information from Paul Papp article as Marcu34 did in July 2012, which I had to restore. and. I quickly checked his contributions and saw the same controversial edits like removing whole stats table:, removing external links while keeping transfermarkt: as well as blanking talk page Checkuser will be usefull in showing the relation between these two. Do not be confused by the message which Dancewithwolfves posted on Marcu34 talkpage, because he likely did it by mistake as he posted the same message on User:Eddie Nixon talkpage a minute later. Oleola (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2013 (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

 * - —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

, bordering on ✅, that the following accounts are related: I have no non-stale reference point to compare these accounts to Cyperuspapyrus. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Behavior indicates both accounts are related to Cyperuspapyrus, hence blocking and tagging as such. NativeForeigner Talk 19:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

04 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Target of edits is the same, focused on Romanian footballers and footballers that played in Romanian league. Lowlyspeck is removing whole career statistics tables, just like sockmaster, or, it's rather an unusual behavior. While 213.233.92.166 is always linking in his edits to two favourite websites of sockmaster: transfermarkt and soccerway, also edits seems very similar like and. Oleola (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2013 (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 removal of tables is quite similar, good for a check against the more recent socks. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Named user is a ✅ match to and . There is another possible sock, but I do not have time at the moment to do a detailed behavior comparison. If another CU wants to take a look, I can provide the other account by email. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sock and IP both blocked. Leaving open per DoRD. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * - Rschen7754 09:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

01 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Account was registered on 5 June, just one day after I opened last sockpuppet investigation. Target of edits is the same, focused on Romanian football. User is rarely writing edit summaries and if he, they are very similar to sockmaster's like quiting some text in Romanian and or posting links in edit summaries instead of direct reference and. Oleola (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment So... Why am I judged for nothing? Some of the users don't even belong to me. I'm indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia because I didn't respect a definite block. Oleola is not even announcing his actions towards users that didn't agree with him in the past. I'm not a vandal and Oleola has made an obsession. Oleolaola (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2013 (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

 * - I am blocking per WP:DUCK based on the clear report, but a sleeper check would be useful. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The following are related to :

Could we please check against an obvious sock, * that opened a case against the filer after this case was opened. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 20:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that the sleepers are the same as each other, but I don't see the connection to Cyperuspapyrus, who is interested in Romanian football articles, whereas the sleepers have not demonstrated such interest. (The user is likely located in Romania, so sharing Romania as a topic is completely expected.) Would another clerk like to comment? King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Without access to the actual CU info, it is hard to tell what kind of "likely" this is. Internet cafe and they are all just editing articles innocently about their country?  Maybe.  Using multiple accounts for different purposes to avoid scrutiny?  Maybe.  You can always chose to not block and monitor, which doesn't invalidate the CU results.  Behavior trumps technical connections anyway. Note that Bollfooot doesn't overlap in dates with these two, and Christiangog is the oldest of these three yet wasn't picked up in the CU that was run on Jun 4 (see archive) even while he had edited 3 weeks prior.  User:DoRD did that CU an mentioned another possible account, so his input might be helpful.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, more information than "likely" is necessary to make a determination. Perhaps a CheckUser would like to make the decision on whether to block or not? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not bold enough to speak for the CheckUsers, but I would assume their primary role is to make technical connections rather than behavioral ones. Blocking is a function of admin.  If I were to make a suggestion, it would be to keep this open, monitor, and do a deeper comparison of behavior in the meanwhile before deciding.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER
 * I am purposefully vague in my results as to ensure the highest level of privacy for the involved parties. That said, I can say that this is not a case of an internet cafe. While the accounts use a large variety of IPs, one of them that is used by all three is static.  Tiptoety  talk 01:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding that to the timing of the two unblocked accounts, then to me this looks like meat puppetry/COI + likely sock puppetry with one to the master, at least for these three. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  02:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My two cents:
 * ✅ Christiangog = Caesar The Voice, Bollfooot is related to that group, uses the same browser on a probably static IP.
 * ✅ Świniakulturą, Robertspierre750, Nk13405, Ref b0x! b0x!, Daft Punk3, Germanos12, Crayland, Lyle Stein, Old Earl, Tastethefavlour, Bergoglio7, Parranya, Pipi Longstocking, Zwanenburgwal, Arinoushirvan, Fabartous20, Mozzarotti, Moustard with what, Felipe Dost, C3emp3, Readerwicki. to the above, editing via now blocked webhost.
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  02:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * All socks blocked, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

18 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2013 (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

 * Obviously. Already blocked, so closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

19 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

His last sockpuppet I reported, Bollfooot was blocked on 2 July and since then Sean reeds started to massively editing the same areas as Bollfooot, for example,, or. Until 2 July this account made only two edits, so it looks like a sleeper.--Oleola (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2013 (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

 * Based on both checkuser evidence and email confirmation from the sockmaster, Sean reeds is ✅ as a Cyperuspapyrus sock. I have also blocked User:Iagreebut and User:HIDECCHI2013 as confirmed socks.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. Jafeluv (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)