Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite/Archive

Report date March 28 2009, 20:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Deucalionite is currently under a 3-months block for edit-warring and tendentious editing. The IP edits on popular topics of his, has a similar style of argumentation, pushes similar views (especially here, reinstating an old piece of wording previously fought over by Deucalionite), and comes from a similar geographical area as that known to be his. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Fut.Perf. ☼
 * Thanks to Lucasbfr for the checkuser, below. Given that result, and the obvious identity of the editing profiles, I ask an uninvolved admin to please enact a suitable extended block on the main account (possibly indef, given its prior history). If you need further elaboration on why the profiles are DUCK-test-certain, please let me know and I'll explain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * / (considering the contributions). You may consider a short rangeblock of 96.225.96.0/19 if this gets out of hand. However there are legitimate people on that range. -- lucasbfr  talk 20:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 Syn  ergy 21:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving to close, so long as FPaS comments/blocks.  Syn  ergy 21:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Archiving. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 04:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've indef-blocked the main account, as he reacted to this report with another POINTy editing three hopping across multiple IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 26 2009, 13:22 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Balkanian`s word

Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that is a sock of the blocked editor . Evidences:
 * He started reverting the same pages as Deucalionite did (Markos Botsaris), speaking i good english (see his edit summaries).
 * After I told him that I susspect that he is a sock of Deuc, he started speaking spanish more and english less (see: User talk:71.172.187.144.
 * He is contributing from New Jersy, the same as User:Deucalionite. Can somebody check him?
 * User:Deucalionite is blocked indefinetely for sockpuppetry. You may see this: []


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Obvious sock, both behaviorally and on the basis of the known IP range (see earlier, ). Please block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Checkuser here will tell us nothing we don't already know. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Blocked Luk's suggested range for a week with a link to unblock-en-l. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

11 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * known old (stale) socks, just for ease of reference:
 * known old (stale) socks, just for ease of reference:


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is a long story, involving a pattern of disruptive editing going back to 2005 and a sock used for over a year, so I'm afraid the report is longish too.

Deucalionite was blocked in March 2009, after a series of edit-warring incidents related to a long-term pattern of tendentious editing, all stemming from an ideological agenda about ethnic continuity of Greeks. Prior to that, in 2008 he had been found to have been using a sock,, for well over a year.
 * Background

After his last edit-warring block in 2009, he launched into a wild spree of retaliatory edit-warring from dynamic IPs, leading to the block being made indef. Over the following year, until June 2011, he regularly repeated these barely disguised sock attacks, always following the same pattern: some harmless technical gnoming edits, then one or two non-trivial tendentious ones, and then, once found and reverted, continuing reverting out of sheer spite until the page in question was semiprotected.

These IP attacks stopped suddenly in June 2010. User:No. 108 was created three months later, on 8 September 2010. Despite his obviously strange and idiosyncratic behaviour I did not recognize him immediately, but over the last months it has become painfully obvious it's him.

These are specific agenda edits by No. 108 that repeat identical or near-identical edits by Deucalionite or known socks of his. I'm of course aware the old accounts (Deucalionite and Elysonius) are stale. I'm just adding a representative sample of the known sock IPs from 2010, as a basis for a geolocation check, if needed. Note that during the last big sock case involving "Elysonius", he was found to have been using two different connections, probably a home and a work IP. But in any case, I think this ought to be possible to process on WP:DUCK criteria alone if you don't want to do a check. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Shared behaviour
 * All user IDs involved (Deucalionite, "Elysonius", the anon IPs and now "No. 108") have the same focus on Greeks-related articles. Article overlaps include many minor, out-of-the-way specialist articles about minority populations in Greece (Arvanites, Souliotes), and about prehistoric populations in Greece (Pelasgians, Minyans, Bryges etc) "wikistalk" report
 * All IDs show the same pattern of a very large number of minor, gnomish edits on other Greece-related articles (tweaking references, adding wikiproject tags etc), often near-vacuous ones of only marginal value (e.g. adding countries to publication places; changing reflist formats to separate footnotes + bibliography style for very short articles, etc.)
 * All share the same highly idiosyncratic style in talkpage discussions (difficult to describe but easy to recognize: somewhat affectatious, manneristic, pompous; compare e.g. with )
 * Deucalionite used to declare openly that his dysfunctional style of communication was something of a social breaching experiment (see deleted version of his old user page ). No. 108's bizarre style of edit summaries seems to be another version of this: his initial affectation was to use absurdly abbreviated summaries ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20101013144307&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=No.+108&namespace=0]); then he went to the opposite extreme with summaries like " Added two (2) periods." ; then he gradually developed the idiosyncratic pseudo-Latin private code he's been using lately.
 * Specific edits:
 * on Byzantine Empire and Byzantine Greeks: quotation involving Byzantium being "the Christianised Roman empire of the Greek nation":
 * added by Deucalionite
 * re-added by No. 108
 * on Minyans: OR passage inserted ("Although scholars today agree that the Mycenean Greeks descend from the "Minyans" of the Middle Helladic period...")
 * inserted (and edit-warred over) by known Deucalionite socks: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minyans&diff=362181795&oldid=362153344][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minyans&action=history&offset=20100504204200&limit=20]
 * re-added by No. 108: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minyans&diff=396347260&oldid=391424988]
 * on Greeks and Byzantine Greeks: citation involving "Roman, Greek (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became synonymous terms, counterposed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'."
 * added repeatedly by known Deucalionite sock IPs:
 * re-added by No. 108:
 * note to CUs:

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

It is very apparent that Future Perfect's subjective interpretation of the aforementioned "evidence" fails to prove any connection between myself and whoever is behind the banned accounts listed.

1) I never submitted any edits to the Arvanites and Souliotes articles (lack of interest).

2) On the Minyans article, I explicitly stated my lack of expertise in the subject matter and that my edits were based only on improving the entry . Also, Future Perfect conveniently omits the fact that I haven't made any further edits to that particular entry since November 12, 2010.

3) On the Pelasgians article, I actually agreed with Future Perfect's critique of certain elements of the entry except for the removal of sourced material that was obviously relevant to the entry.

4) I never submitted any edits to the Bryges entry (again, lack of interest).

5) On the Byzantine Greeks article, I made many improvements, which included verifying a number of different citations . Future Perfect's disingenuous focus on the Harrison citation I verified (without my knowledge of Deucalionite's involvement) is proof of his subjective interpretation of the aforementioned "evidence".

6) I never submitted any edits to the Greeks entry (again, lack of interest).

7) The subjective comparison of discussion styles is clearly a false analogy. Deucalionite's discussion style is aggressive whereas mine is significantly more civil despite Future Perfect's disrespectful and hostile attitude towards me expressed on a number of different occasions . And I don't really think it's "arrogant" to do one's best to assume good faith and maintain civility (hence my use of "humbly" and "with all due respect"). As for the alterations/peculiarities in my writing style (i.e. abbreviations to "Stable Versions"), they were developed as a result of Future Perfect's direct request and developments in my experiences with other editors.

8) I never added templates to discussion pages anywhere (even to entries that I created: Zygostates (Byzantine official), kommerkiarios).

9) On Deucalionite's talkpage, I discovered that the user appears to be a fluent Greek-speaker, which is proof that I'm not Deucalionite as my knowledge of Greek (and Latin) is limited to words and phrases. Case in point, I was unable to respond to this Greek message sent to my discussion page.

10) Sorry, but I never used IP's to get my edits through (it just doesn't feel right).

It doesn't take much to infer that Future Perfect at Sunrise is trying very hard to falsely portray me as a liability to the project via connecting me to a banned account(s). But my contributions clearly prove that my only purpose on Wikipedia is to improve the quality of articles. No. 108 (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, how exactly does reporting (or banning) a constructive user (ex:, , ) benefit the project? Has anyone actually calculated the amount of project resources that go into all this? No. 108 (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Everything is, . -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest an indefinite block of User:No. 108 as a sock of Deucalionite based on behavior. The overall pattern is striking, and I notice an identical edit being restored by No. 108 at Minyans as mentioned by Future Perfect above. We know that Deucalionite made active use of sockpuppets, so it is understandable that he could be constantly seeking new avenues for getting his POV into these ancient articles. Articles like Minyans are way off the beaten track for most people. The behavior tabulated by FP is too surprising to be a coincidence. The main editors of Minyans appear to be Deucalionite, Future Perfect, and IP socks of Deucalionite. In the history, notice all the IPs beginning with 96.* and 71.*, with most of the IPs geolocating to New Jersey. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced. I won't do the block myself as FPS told me about this on my talk page so someone might see me as involved, but I'll support an indefinite block. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have blocked User:No. 108 indef as a sock of User:Deucalionite and tagged the user page. It seem to me that this report can now be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing left to do here, so closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (blocked as a sock of Deucalionite but not listed in the SPI, included here for comparison)
 * (blocked as a sock of Deucalionite but not listed in the SPI, included here for comparison)


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

A "new" user account (whose editing, marked by reverting with no notification to the user being reverted, Wikilawyering and deliberate attempts to mislead, shows that it's a very experienced user) repeatedly removing material previously removed by Deucalionite socks (see page history of Greeks), claiming there's consensus on the talk page, pointing to a long since archived discussion (which no random user would be able to find) started by blocked Deucalionite sock, a discussion where there's no support for the change. And since Theban Halberd was blocked only two months ago a CU-check might be possible. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:22, 1 December 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

 * Theban Halberd and Silver Manowar are ✅ to each other. I've blocked and tagged Silver Manowar and adjusted the tag on Theban Halberd. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The article on Byzantine Greeks was semi-protected by an administrator, after a Deucalionite sock-puppet, Knight Man, and (after Knight Man's block) IPs associated with Deucalionite repeatedly restored a tendentious re-writing of parts of the article's material. Q-Force's only substantial edit other than small, technical edits has been to restore this very material into the article. As stated in the archive relating to investigations for Deucalionite's sockpuppets, Deucalionite has "regularly repeated [...] barely disguised sock attacks, always following the same pattern: some harmless technical gnoming edits, then one or two non-trivial tendentious ones" and is motivated by "an ideological agenda about ethnic continuity of Greeks". This same pattern of behaviour is detected in the edits of Q-Force, an account created just a couple of days after Knight Man was blocked, and whose only substantial contribution has been to restore Knight Man's edit to the Byzantine Greeks article. Knight Man was blocked in January, and I think a checkuser is possible.
 * Specific edits
 * edit by Knight Man, a Deucalionite sock
 * RV by administrator
 * edits by Deucalionite IPs  and RVs
 * edit by Q-Force Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2017 (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

 * Both accounts blocked. No need for a CU. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (recently used sock of Deucalionite, now blocked, included here for comparison)
 * (recently used sock of Deucalionite, now blocked, included here for comparison)
 * (recently used sock of Deucalionite, now blocked, included here for comparison)
 * (recently used sock of Deucalionite, now blocked, included here for comparison)


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

As is evident from past investigations now archived, after his block in 2009 Decaulionite has persistently created sockpuppet accounts that seem to display the following pattern of behaviour: "some harmless technical gnoming edits, then one or two non-trivial tendentious ones" in order to impose his "ideological agenda about ethnic continuity of Greeks" in Greece-related articles. The account "Tiberius Rex" was created on November 11, the very same day as "Q-Force" , an account now identified with Deucalionite and blocked. On the 16th of January, "Tiberius Rex" created a user page redirecting to his talk page, an action also undertaken by "Q-Force" just a few hours later. NB: This was a practice first adopted by a previous Deucalionite sockpuppet, Theban Halberd, who endorsed it after receiving advice in his talk page about minimizing the possibility that his account be "taken less seriously in the wikipedia community". Other than gnoming edits in random articles, Tiberius Rex has made a minor edit in Byzantine Greeks, an article of interest to Deucalionite and his puppets, and participated in a talk page discussion about ancient Macedonia by making an assertion (in the customary style of "Theban Halberd" -- see the archive and e.g. here). Moreover, the days that "Tiberius Rex" used his account (see his contibutions page) almost entirely coincide with the days Deucalionite used his "Q-Force" account until the latter was blocked. Per the archive of investigations of sock puppets of Deucalionite, it is only a matter of time until a Deucalionite sock puppet account engages in his customary disruptive and tendentious editing in articles relating to Greek history. A CU is necessary to ascertain that "Tiberius Rex" belongs to the same person (i.e. Deucalionite) as (now blocked, but recently used) socks like "Q-Force", "Theban Halberd", "Knight Man", but also to identify other possibly existing sleeper accounts belonging to the same sock master. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2017 (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 timing coincidence (both created the same day – 11 January, not 11 November as stated above –, both then make the usual 10 random edits and wait 5 days to become autoconfirmed, both then become active on Byzantine Greeks on 16 January – is certainly quite strong. Note that the initial edits on 11 January were done several hours apart, so he may have been again using his old tactics of using his work and his home connection to hide the connection from checkuser. Apart from that, I think a CU would be good for sleepers, but the pattern is strong enough to even block without that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except for Tiberius Rex, all of the accounts are . However, Tiberius Rex and are ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. User:Sub-Mycenae is a clear behavioral match for Deucalionite. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Over the last few months the article Byzantine Greeks has been the target of persistent attacks by socks of Deucalionite. As the article's history and also the talk page demonstrate, there have been two areas of particular interest to Deucalionite['s sockpuppets] in accordance with his (per the archive of past investigations on his sockpuppets) "ideological agenda about ethnic continuity of Greeks": the passage that relates to the appelation "Graikoi" and the use of the infobox in the article (see talk page sections: "sources distorted" and "infobox", in both of which Deucalionite's sockpuppet ThebanHalberd is involved). This account in question, Gargoyle Goliath, after making a number of gnoming edits in the recently created article on the Tomb of Clytemnestra (see it's history) that allowed him to edit semi-protected articles, proceeded to edit the article Byzantine Greeks, arbitrarily editing the article to add that the appellation "Graikoi" of the Byzantines was an "endonym", then adding it to the article's infobox. Moreover, he made an edit that changed the article in three tendentious ways that constitute an obvious behavioural match with Deucalionite and his sockpuppets. First, he restored a reference to "Γραικοί" that had been added by User:No. 108 (an account now blocked as a sock-puppet of Deucalionite). Second, he arbitrarily added that the appellation "Graikoi" had been "commonly" used, thus altering the sentence's correction by User:Piledhighandeep and restoring the sentence to the meaning it had in its original formulation, when it was added to the article by IP 71.172.186.50 (which seems to originate from New Jersey, the place where Deucalionite and his IPs operate from, according to the archive of past investigations relating to his sock-puppets). And, third, he separated some lines relating to the self-perception of the Byzantines to a section called "Byzantine scholarship", an edit identical with that of another of Deucalionite's sockpuppets, Theban Halberd. I think that these three edits combined demonstrate that Gargoyle Goliath, this supposedly new account, is no other than the most recent reincarnation of Deucalionite and I ask for a CU that will provide technical verification for this and also reveal other sleeper accounts. I have added above the two accounts most recently used by Deucalionite [Tiberius Rex and Sub-Mycenae], which were last used by Deucalionite in April and could thus, I think, be cross-examined with "Gargoyle Goliath" in a CU. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2017 (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 new account is now blocked. No need to include socks that are already in the archive. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Othon I persistenly accuses Albanian editors of "Albanian Nationalistic POV agenda" and this happens in every interaction, just as Deucalionite and their socks did. Othon I has showed his interest in Byzantine Empire on his user page where has placed "This user is interested in the Byzantine Empire" user box. He reverted an seemingly disruptive edit on Byzantine Greeks that suggests he had that article on his watchlist. Othon heavily edits articles of Byzantine Empire topics such as, ,. Deucalionite and blocked socks heavily edited articles connected to the topic (Byzantine Empire, Byzantine Greeks and so on). For example Theban Halberd's first nine edits were creations of articles of Byzantine Empire topic. Othon I and Theban Halberd edited Fustanella article (15 and 8 edits respectively) and its talk page (11 and 10 edits respectively) in the same period of time (June 2016). The same with Simon Sinas article. Othon I edited it on 15 June 2016. Two days later Theban edited the same article. Othon I edited Simon Sinas article on 18 September 2016 and Theban two days later again. They did massive changes there. Theban Halberd nominated Evangelos Zappas for GA status and Othon I has many changes on that article (15). The first edit of Othon on Evangelos Zappas article came less than a week after the last edit of Theban there. Also check Byzantine tiger and Effomatus. They edit only articles of Byzantine topic and most of their edits are additions of sources throughout article and Further reading section with edit summaries such as :"new publication", "Added two recent secondary works.",  "added three extra, recently published books.", "Updated References". "Updated Secondary sources" and so on. Othon I knows I suspect the account is a sock (since 10 April) and may have made their last edits with another IP (from another location). Checkuser will provide technical verification and may find sleepers and new accounts created after the last confirmed sock was blocked. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Comment by Othon I

As it happens, your co-national have been vandalising and fluctuating most of the pages with Albanian POV pushing and it is important to keep them in a level. Your arguments are invalid. Same your attempt to accuse me as someone that i don't even know who he is. Please refrain from your POV pushing and you wont me reverting Albanian related articles. Othon I (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Katietalk 14:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Effotamus and Byzantinas_tiger are.
 * Othon I is ❌ to the archived evidence for Deucalonite – different IPs, different devices, different UAs. Closing. Katietalk 14:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

As evident from the archive of previous sockpuppet investigations related with Deucalionite, the article "Byzantine Greeks" has been a long-term target of this sockmaster over the years, who has been making POV and tendentious edits in his various incarnations -- either using his account or as an anonymous IP editor. Deucalionite also proceeded to create a number of supposedly new accounts ("Theban Halberd", "Q-Force", "Knight Man", "Tiberius Rex" etc), especially after this article [along with that on "Greeks"] was semi-protected on account of his behaviour last January, all of them making some random edits of little importance, usually in Greek-related articles, then proceeding to make tendentious edits promoting Deucalionite's POV, his "ideological agenda about ethnic continuity of Greeks" (as per the archive). Neo-Brasidas, this supposedly new account, falls into exactly the same pattern. Neo-Brasidas made 10 gnome edits in Greek-related subjects and, having become an autoconfirmed account, proceeded with his eleventh edit to make a POV and tendentious edit by changing the very first sentence of the article "Byzantine Greeks", forming it in a way that reflects his aforementioned personal POV. The identity of Neo-Brasidas's behavioural pattern with that of previous sockpuppets of Deucalionite, such as "Gargoyle Goliath", makes me consider (per the duck test) this account yet another Deucalionite sockpuppet; a checkuser should prove that this is the case and perhaps will also reveal sleeper accounts. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2017 (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
This case is. CU declined. For this to be evaluated behaviorally, more evidence, in the way of diffs, needs to be presented. There is not a single diff of the master or any of their socks, just one diff of the alleged puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The filer hasn't edited on Wikipedia in two weeks (since the date they filed this report). Closing without prejudice to being reopened with the required evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I have already asked in the past for a Check-User to be conducted to confirm that "Neo-Brasidas" is a sockpuppet of Deucalionite. As it happened that I had taken a break from editing wikipedia shortly after filing the request and on account of the paucity of edits by "Neo-Brasidas" at the time, the previous investigation on "Neo-Brasidas" was closed "without prejudice to being reopened with the required evidence" (see here). "Neo-Brasidas" has now proceeded with further edits and all of them tend to confirm that he is yet another of Deucalionite's sockpuppets.
 * First, his editing pattern suggests an exact identity of interests and agenda with Deucalionite and his sockpuppets. According to the archive of previous investigations for Deucalionite's sockpuppets, he is characterised by "a long-term pattern of tendentious editing [...] stemming from an ideological agenda about ethnic continuity of Greeks". "Neo-Brasidas"'s behaviour reproduces the exact same pattern.
 * A) He displays the same focus: as confirmed by checking the list of his contributions, almost all his major edits concern the article "Byzantine Greeks", which has been the constant focus of Deucalionite --and of "No. 108", "Q-Force", "Knight Man", and "Theban Halberd" (accounts that are all listed among the article's "top editors" - see the article's revision history statistics - and now blocked as Deucalionite's sockpuppets).
 * B) His tendentious editing is in pursuit of the same ideological agenda: "Neo-Brasidas"'s tendentious editing consists, among others in changing the first sentence of the article so that it reflects the minority viewpoint that the article's subject was a population that was ethnically Greek. "Neo-Brasidas"'s attention is also drawn to a paragraph that "Theban Halberd" (an account now blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Deucalionite) had moved from the section "Self-perception" to a section called "Byzantine scholarship" (see the edit here). "Neo-Brasidas" similarly desires to remove this very paragraph, now deleting it from the article and moving it to a different article that deals with Byzantine scholarship (see ). Just like the previous edit, this one reveals "Neo-Brasidas"'s agenda as being identical with that of Deucalionite and his puppets, as the paragraph he wishes to remove describes Greek nationalist views on the matter as not being predominant among modern scholars.
 * C) "Neo-Brasidas"'s first edit of the article was the eleventh edit made by this account -- NB: ten edits is the minimum number required so that an account can edit semi-protected articles like "Byzantine Greeks". This is behaviour that matches that of other Deucalionite sockpuppets, such as "Q-Force", who as demonstrated by his list of contributions likewise made 10 gnome-y edits to become qualified to edit semi-protected articles and shortly after proceeded with a tendentious edit of the article "Byzantine Greeks".
 * Further indication for the identity of the account into question with Deucalionite can be provided by his personal page, which he has edited into a redirection to his talk page. This is to implement advice "Theban Halberd" (another Deucalionite sockpuppet) had received in the past and has been promptly adopted by Deucalionite's sockpuppets -- see the user page of "Theban Halberd", "Q-Force", and "Tiberius Rex".
 * It is not without any significance that, right after his tendentious edit in the article "Byzantine Greeks" was reverted by two different users (1, 2), "Neo-Brasidas" immediately and out of the blue chose to solicit help from Dr.K. writing a message in his talk page (see here). This was no fortuitous choice. Deucalionite and his puppets are on friendly terms with Dr.K.: Deucalionite has addressed Dr.K. in Greek as "brother" (Greek: "αδερφέ") (see here: "Μην κάθεσαι αδερφέ [...]"), he has been awarded a barnstar by Dr.K. for edits made using his "No. 108" sockpuppet account (see here), and they have engaged in the exchange of pleasantries in Dr.K.'s talk page (see here -- " I truly appreciate the Holiday wishes", "I consider them a privilege", "that means a lot to me" and so forth).

As all recent edits of "Neo-Brasidas" suggest a pattern of behaviour that corresponds exactly to that of Deucalionite and his previous sockpuppets, "Neo-Brasidas" cannot but be said to pass the duck test from a behavioural point of view. However, I ask for a CU that will unambiguously confirm from a technical point of view as well (e.g. by comparing "Neo-Brasidas"'s IP's location with that of previous Deucalionitic accounts. I note that, as per previous investigations, Deucalionite and his IPs/sockpuppets, used since he was indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, have been contributing mostly from New Jersey) that "Neo-Brasidas" is a sockpuppet of Deucalionite. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Since a CU-check can't be made I'm pinging Future Perfect, as they seem to have a very good knowledge of Deucalionite and their socks, going all the way back to 2009, and thus might be able to tell if it's a sock or not, based on edits, etc. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:21, 13 March 2018 (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 case is still. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocking. I find the behavioural evidence convincing, especially the focus on the intro paragraph of Byzantine Greeks and that paragraph about views of Byzantine identity in modern scholarship, which had been a repeated object of sock activity (not merely from User:Theban Halberd but also from User:Gargoyle Goliath . Also some issues of style, tone and mannerisms (difficult to describe, as usual, but quite recognizable when you know the editor). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Tasker United was created on 27 September 2016, though he made his first edit on 27 March 2018, two weeks after the last confirmed sock of Deucalionite was blocked. Deucalionite has a long history of socking, in some cases involving sleeper accounts. Tasker United has two characteristics that have been used as evidence in previous SPIs on Deucalionite: making small edits (copy editing, ref fixes, file size modifications, minor corrections) in a way that indicates experience and a strong focus on Byzantine world (mostly Byzantine Empire and its leaders). For instance,, , , ,. Tasker United has been invited to join the Guild of Copy Editors, another detail that points out to possible previous experiences of the person who edits with the suspected sock. An edit of Tasker United so far that is not related to Byzantine world, is related to the United States, the country where Deucalionite lives, according to evidence collected in previous SPIs.

A CU would verify any possible connection between the suspected sock and Deucalionite, and check for possible sleepers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I saw Tasker United's edits today, he has started a draft . I do not know if it is planned to become an article. If so, it would be a hoax article. Tasker United shows there a deep knowledge of ancient Greek mythology, using obscure Greek mythological figures to build an imaginary infobox/character. Deucalionite made use of Greek mythological figures, and some of his blocked accounts were named after them. Deucalionite is this. Other examples are Elysonius, Neo-Brasidas, Theban Halberd. With such usernames, Deucalionite has showed a strong connection to ancient Greek mythology, and a desire to build imaginary characters based on it. Deucalionite means a descendant of Deucalion, Elysonius means a person from Elysium, Neo-Brasidas means the new Brasidas, and so on. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Confirmed socks of Deucalionite referred to themselves with titles that indicate kind of competencies. Examples: "inspector", , . They say And since we are speaking on formal terms, I'd like to request that you refer to me as "Inspector" No. 108 . Another example is "patron" , . "Catalyst researcher" , . "Humble quality management inspector" , . Tasker United is another title of that kind, making this rare behaviour shared among the said accounts.
 * In previous SPIs has been highlighted Deucalionite's preference to use the term "fix" on their edit summaries. For instance, Deucalionite has used the term "fix" on more than 5000 edit summaries, that is more than one third of their 13,868 edit summaries. Elysonius has done so on 560 edit summaries. Tasker United has done so on 7 from 20 edit summaries they have made, that is more than one third of all edit summaries. Whatever the conclusion, this SPI has stayed open for a rather long time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Alexikoua

 * The behavioral evidence appears inadequate & especially the interest in a very broad topic such as Greek mythology means virtually nothing, as well as the use of ancient Greek names. I can name dozens of editors interested in Greek mythology and of various ethnic backgrounds this doesn't qualify them as possibly sockpuppets.Alexikoua (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Tasker United and, the only non-stale account, are ❌ to each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Closing with no action. --Deskana (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Deucalionite is a user that has been invested in POV-pushing his nationalist beliefs in articles relating to matters Greek to such an extent that he received a block from editing Wikipedia for a period of time and, after found to have used sockpuppets to evade his block, was blocked indefinitely from the project. Of particular import in his activities have been the articles regarding the Byzantines and their Empire, where he has been making tendentious edits aiming to prove them as having been ethnic Greeks. In this respect No. 108, an account now blocked as a Deucalionite sockpuppet, had added in the article on the Byzantine Empire his OR based on some passages of Byzantine authors containing the term "Γραικία" and a New-Jersey based IP (where, according to the archive, Deucalionite is based) added unsourced claims that modern Greeks called their language "Γραικικά" (see here). A similar edit had been made in the article "[Byzantine Greeks]" by Knight Man, another Deucalionite sockpuppet. These claims had been deleted from the article on the Byzantine Empire by the present user in June 2017 (see here and, here). Five months later, in November 2017, Hessian Janitor restored the exact same info and wording that had been added to the article by Deucalionite's sockpuppets.

Moreover, Hessian Janitor has also edited the very first sentence of the article "Byzantine Greeks" restoring a POV-ish and tendentious version that had been restored in the past by Neo-Brasidas, another Deucalionite sockpuppet.

These coincidences are way too many to ignore and I ask for a checkuser that will confirm from a technical point of view that Hessian Janitor is yet another sockpuppet of Deucalionite.


 * Specific edits
 * OR added by No. 108, a Deucalionite sockpuppet
 * unsourced claims added with edit by (probably Deucalionite's) IP
 * OR added by Knight Man, a Deucalionite sockpuppet
 * OR + unsourced claim added by Hessian Janitor


 * edit by Neo-Brasidas, a Deucalionite sockpuppet
 * edit by Hessian Janitor Ashmedai 119 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2018 (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
Blocked and tagged. Maybe CUs can still take a note of the current IPs so as to have more data for checking the unavoidable next sock in the future? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. CUs can check against this account, unless it goes stale. GABgab 16:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

No Hercule Poirot stuff on my part; User: was an earlier sock of the same. CU for sleepers perhaps? —— SerialNumber  54129  14:38, 19 January 2019 (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
Group 1 is ✅ to each other

Group 2 is ✅ to each other
 * is

I have listed it this way because he appears to have traveled in December with Group 1. UAs match and Group 2 is in the same location as in December, 2017. Group 1 and Group 2 are. . — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The suspected sock is reverting to edits made by two confirmed socks, and. A CU can check for other possible socks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2019 (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
✅ to the master

. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Picklehaube! was blocked as a sock of Deucalionite by an admin after I posted on their talk page evidence of socking. Because Deucalionite has a long record of using multiple sock accounts at the same time, I think that if allowed, a CU check for possible socks could be helpful. Picklehaube! itself caused edit warring on several articles within an hour of account creation. The Deucalionite account itself is stale, so a CU could use Picklehaube! to search for possible socks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * was created less than 20 minutes ago and started to revert to Picklehaube!'s version. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See also . Super   Ψ   Dro  15:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * On J.B.Wortz, from a quick look, the account has removed the claim of Albanian origin of Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus with Deucalionite's common edit summary "propaganda" (even the blocked I listed above used it a few days ago) . Deucalionite's socks have a history of removing the Albanian origin claim of Thomaeus, and supporting a Greek origin. In one case for example, after editing with the same POV the article with an IP, Deucalionite created the Umpire Empire account that soon got blocked as an obvious sock . On Jack Crackerjack, I do not have the time for a deeper look, though maybe might have sth to say. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Future Perfect at Sunrise, pinged by me above, blocked both accounts. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - seeing as 3 socks have apparently been created over the past few days, seems worth a check for more. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * &   Salvio 16:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - please indef J.B. Wortz and Jack Crackerjack, who are obvious socks - same interest in Greek history and see e.g. . Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Everything seems to be wrapped up - closing. Spicy (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)