Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daccono/Archive

10 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

No CheckUser is requested for this report. Daccono is the account Iaaasi uses when he wants to get something done on Wikipedia, but doing so would immediately unmask or place suspicion on other accounts and reveal them as Iaaasi sockpuppets / meatpuppets. He uses this Daccono account very rarely, this means that CheckUser will be of no use here. As long as he is only editing with a slow rate he can fool CheckUser easily see WP:BEANS. However avoiding CheckUser is the only thing he is doing, the evidence is very clear. The account almost couldn't be a more self-evident Iaaasi sock than this. There is also a lot of material to compare when Iaaasi was blocked indefinitely in 2010 then this account was more active please refer to the user-compare report which will be auto-generated by bot. I am actually shocked that the community failed deal with this account so far. This account not only edited the same articles as Iaaasi, not only used Iaaasi's style everywhere, not only appeared in the same articles mere moments after other Iaaasi socks to revert to the same version, he once again uses this account to mimic the EXACT same things that Iaaasi used to do. Barely edits all year then files CheckUser against Stubes Please see how many CU-s were filed by other Iaaasi socks or the Iaaasi main account against Stubes? Not to mention the most obvious piece of evidence which was somehow missed by the community... That at the time this account was already blocked as Iaaasi by an admin which is a bit more than a red flag... Yes he was unblocked but under absurd circumstances. There was no unblock request, the blocking admin wasn't consulted. Not to mention That the Daccono account was created on 13:30, 8 July 2010 Daccono (talk) Mere hours after two Iaaasi socks 03:07, 8 June 2010 and 03:07, 8 June 2010 were blocked and thus became unusable. These socks had advanced cover (say pretending to be German and thus not becoming suspicious) so their loss was significant, they had to be replaced quickly and therefore Daccono was created the same day. A few hours later. I think considering the circumstances Iaaasi is laughing at the community since 2010 because of that unblock. Being created so soon after the other socks were blocked should have been a huge red flag all along. But even though unblocked he could only rarely use this account since it's block log is still contained information that an admin already Identified this account as a sockpuppet of Iaaasi. IIRC this was even brought up against Iaaasi by random people when Daccono tried to write his usual reports /requests. No CheckUser is requested for this report. Hobartimus (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A recent on-wiki incident also revealed that Iaaasi is obsessed with Stubes (and Stubes with Iaaasi). A youtube video was linked (now removed) showed they exchanged dozens of emails with each other despite their past relationship (which includes a lot). And that Iaaasi sent an email in which he threatened Stubes with getting other people to revert Stubes socks (Iaaasi named Iadrian yu as such person who will do reverting on behalf of Iaaasi). This explains why only a few days later Daccono is proposing action against Stubes. They want to retaliate against each other, the Iaaasi sock Daccono requested the CheckUsers and now also requested a range block against Stubes. Stubes used IPs to link the aforementioned video all over Wikipedia so a rangeblock request would be very understandable as coming from an Iaaasi sock during this time. Hobartimus (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the evidence is overwhelming unless someone can explain how the account was created a few hours after the others were blocked. That was just a coincidence huh? Then the account goes on to edit Iaaasi's all time favourite article John Hunyadi and goes after Iaaasi's nemesis, Stubes while has no interests of it's own. Please wait for a second opinion unless these "strange coincidences" are properly explained. Hobartimus (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional evidence. Daccono was created July 2010 as mentioned during a time when Iaaasi was blocked. However Iaaasi was unblocked on 8th of December and was banned in late March, freely being able to edit for about 4 months. During these 4 months Daccono only made two   minor edits between December 2010 and March 2011 when Iaaasi was able to edit on his main account. This could be yet another coincidence that Daccono a new legitimate editor of under 100 edits decided to go on Wikibreak on the exact same time when Iaaasi was able to edit anyway. However after Iaaasi was banned, Daccono edits became not so minor any more. In this edit he collected about 20 diffs. Does that look like something user with 75 edits worth of experience wrote? Or more like several thousand as Iaaasi has. Not to mention the whole thing is against Stubes an opponent of Iaaasi and not Daccono (who just had an almost 5 month wikibreak at that point). Interestingly the diffs cited by Daccono in his ban proposal against Stubes contain diffs like an obscure message to Iaaasi from a period when Daccono was supposedly on Wikibreak message of an IP to Diaanaa about Iaaasi, when Daccono was on wikibreak. Then later Daccono complains about another user once again citing some diffs that were written to/about Iaaasi Daccono cites this for example a message from Iaaasi's talk page from February. I also think if Daccono were indeed a legitimate new user his contributions list would be a lot different. I've also submitted some evidence in email to HelloAnnyong any admin interested in the case is free to ask for that as well. If it's still altogether insufficient then at least I still called attention to this possibility and provided the chance for someone else to build a better case later if needed. Hobartimus (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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

I hope no one can take this accusation seriously. Two independent investigations already proved my non-implication: Daccono (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This has already been checked twice. Even if no CU was requested, I don't think there's enough to go on. A marginally bad faith case, I'm just going to close this. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In full disclosure, Hobartimus emailed me about this case. I've struck part of my comment above, but I still don't think there's enough to justify blocking or anything. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We've been through this before with Hobartimus and Daccono. I should say that it's getting frustrating to review this case over and over again. TN X Man  17:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)