Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EU 100%/Archive

Report date March 29 2009, 14:36 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Unclear why he made another account, since his original hasn't been blocked (yet), but a glance at the user page and contributions show they are definitely the same person. TastyCakes (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by TastyCakes (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

EU100% has been annoying for a while and has not made a constructive edit I know of. Suddenly there is this new EUonly (oh sorry UEonly) who lists the same CV on his user page, responds to discussion of EU100%, and has a similar style of discussion. This seems so obvious a case of sockpuppetry that it seems this person wants to be blocked; I would not mind if he gets what he wants; it would calm down a lot of discussions. Arnoutf (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

User:UEonly only edited at his and User:EU 100% talk pages; however, sock account has been indef blocked. User:EU 100% has been blocked for one week because the sock didn't make any mainspace edits, although going by his contributions, any other admin is feel free to take a second look and adjust the block accordingly. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * After looking through it, I extended the block to indef. His contributions show that his disruption is something we do not want back on this site. Wizardman  04:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date May 19 2009, 16:17 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (added Arnoutf) Arnoutf (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (added by This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC))
 * (added by This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Evidence submitted by This flag once was red

EU 100% was previously blocked for socking with a registered username (User:UEonly). Initially blocked only for a week, the block was extended to indefinite based on EU 100%'s disruptive behaviour at Talk:European Union. EU 100%'s modus operadni was to insist that the EU surpassed the USA in all/most/some/whatever-matter-right-now areas, and that European Union should reflect that. Any editor opposing that view was - obviously! - a lackey of the evil USA, probably had received a sub-standard eduction, possibly couldn't even read, etc. EU 100%'s views were to be supported by references that "will be provided shortly".

A recent series of edits by IPs in the 151.60.*.* range are eerily reminiscent of EU 100%, from the use of curious idioms ("I heard novels when i was a child") to the veiled attacks on other editors ("It's so clear that only a guy that isn't able to read can't understand") to the promises of references "soon" ("I'll set the references as soon as possible", "I'm not able to set directly here the references,anyway i'll set them if you need as soon as possible", "Anyway you must wait as i wrote for references ,are you blind?") to complaints of US propaganda ("The US PROPAGANDA has legs shorter and shorter ,the theatre is fallen").

Is there anyway we could get a rangeblock on 151.60.116.*, 151.60.117.*, 151.60.118.* and 151.60.117.*? I realise that that may cause some collateral damage, but it seems easier than semi-protecting Talk:European Union, and the joy of arguing with a troll has long since gone.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Awe, I was starting to miss him ;) It seems very clear to me that it's the same guy.  Note also his spelling of Usa.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Same guy in my view.
 * I was notified on my talk page that WORLDPOWER27 is active on Talk:Emerging superpower. Same style of editing, same background (Italian, emphasis on Latin as language more important than English, references to personal past etc.) as EU 100%. In my view this clearly identifies him as a suspected sockpuppet. I added this user to the checklist. Arnoutf (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Potential superpowers? Sure looks like our friend: "how can be Usa a Superpower? Be honest!" Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note also the 27 likely stands for the 27 countries in the EU. So the name seems another, not particularly clever, variation of his old ones.  TastyCakes (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I notified Arnoutf after he told me about EU100%, as I'm one of the main contributors on Superpower and Potential superpowers, as well as other articles related to international relations. I also like to note that (from what I can tell), the IP just recently attacked Tasty Cakes accusing him of being a US citizen (like OMG, it's the worst thing ever), and of course  telling the users on the EU page to wait for references, though I found 19 reliable sources (without it being OR or SYN) stating "EU is a superpower, EU is not a superpower, EU is an emerging superpower at this time, US is the only superpower at this time" within 20 minutes, several of them from European think tanks. Besides it representing that there is no consensus on that EU is a superpower at this time, he should be getting references right away.  Deavenger (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions


 * WORLDPOWER27 blocked and tagged.
 * IP range hardblocked for a month (it's a /22, so hopefully there won't be too much collateral). Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 1 2009, 14:03 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by TFOWR

Based on IPs' contributions, limited spelling and grammar skills ("Usa"), and general willingness to argue that the EU is the world's number one superpower (and that any attempts to oppose this view are only made by citizens or stooges of "Usa"), I'd suggest that WP:DUCK applies and EU 100% is back to its old tricks.

Oh, and altering posts that have already been replied to is not only extremely irritating, but also behaviour in common with EU 100%.

EU 100% uses DHCP, so I'd like to request rangeblocks for 151.60.116.*, 151.60.117.*, 151.60.118.* and 151.60.119.*. This was done in response to the previous SPI report, so I'm hopeful that collateral damage is minor.

Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Seems obvious, same language skills, same aggressive behaviour, same comments to same articles (superpower, USA and EU), same conspiracy theories...... seems a clear example of WP:DUCK Arnoutf (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Second that, I'd also add that the IPs all resolve to the same town in Italy. TastyCakes (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Range re-blocked for 3 months. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date December 28 2009, 00:25 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Identical rhetoric he used to harp on at talk:United States. TastyCakes (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by TastyCakes (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

His comments appear to be almost identical in terms of the kind of vocabulary used by EU100%. G. R. Allison (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Same language use (Usa capitalisation a.o.), same topic (EU is superpower, US no longer is) as EU100%. Seem like a duck WP:DUCK. Arnoutf (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

151.60.116.0/22 blocked 6 months. –MuZemike 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions