Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethiopique/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This user may be using various IP's to avoid detection. Creates obscure articles then IP edits said article with one of several range ip's. The ip and the user seem to be edit warring on this article  IP also restores content the user initially altered. . These IP ranges mainly edit Ethiopian related articles. . Whats interesting from the list is that the range edits a sock prone page Jamal ad-Din II, im thinking its one of several old socks on this page likely romolin see for example the removal of similar content. IP range usage of same terms in edit summary "corrected" with an old sock Ramolionwise on battle of ansata article  Coincidently IP range along with Ramoliawise have also edited the obscure of Battle of ansata article  Magherbin (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2022 (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 see they were already warned about logged-out editing, which is what I was going to do. It looks like they haven't edited since that time, so I'll just close this. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This user was blocked few months ago but continues to use a host of revolving IP's to evade the block. I filed a case prior to his block but nothing was done as it seemed they were simply not logging in, now the user is blocked from the encyclopedia. Edits talk page of said blocked account and uses IP/usernames to restore edits made by original blocked account    See also   Magherbin (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, I did provide evidence regarding beteamora see link 4 above, this user wants the term "arab curassiers" in the infobox, thats what beteamora inserted and what the blocked editor originally included into the article Ethiopian-Adal War. Betamora and his socks also have a habit of including Sultanate of Harar in the infobox of various articles, see Malassay which was protected recently for the ip's disruption. BetAmora even replies to my original edit summary to his IP's in which I stated the states are the same and then proceeds to include Sultanate of Harar in the infobox, the IP also previously opened a talk page discussion to argue the fact that these states were not the same as well. Betamora restored an old edit made by the master in which a dynasty ended in Harar  BetAmora was created minutes after I opened this SPI case, I think their thought process now is that if they dont use IP's they can evade the block by registering for a new account. Apologies I was in a rush and didnt go into detail on this earlier. Magherbin (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Evidence connecting the 2601:280:c000::/36 range and ZemenfesKidus:
 * Evidence previously provided in an older filing: IPs belonging to 2601:280:c001:d690::/64 reinstate ZemenfesKidus' edits: vs ;  vs.
 * As pointed out by Magherbin in this filing, the 2601:280:CB02::/50 range edited ZemenfesKidus' talk page, and reinstated ZemenfesKidus' edits  vs.
 * Evidence connecting the 2601:280:CB02::/50 range and BeteAmora:
 * Yesterday at the PaullyMatthews SPI I independently connected BeteAmora to another IP belonging to the 2601:280:CB02::/50 range, 2601:280:CB02:100C:3860:2069:DE2B:3B04. I'll just copy my argument from there: the IP looks a bit like BeteAmora editing logged-out: restoring similar edits vs  and  vs  (though the BeteAmora edit was actually first restored by 98.50.110.56 ; cf. the history); editing in close sequence.
 * Timeline for BeteAmora: the 2601:280:CB02::/50 range was heavily editing Horn of Africa (HoA) articles from 21:13, 26 May to 4:14, 27 May, whereafter there are a number of edits to very different subjects, and only resumes editing HoA articles with one edit on 22:57, 29 May, on 14:59 30 May, and then back in full force from 6 June on. Compare this with BeteAmora, who created their account on 04:18, 27 May 2022 and starts editing heavily, taking a rest at 12:02, 27 May and starting again at 22:16, 27 May (similar editing hours as the IP range), and goes on to edit heavily on 28 May and 29 May (until 09:38), making two more edits on 30 May and then going silent. So BeteAmora starts editing on 27 May four minutes after the IP range quit, edits heavily on 28 and 29 May while at the same time the IP range remains silent on HoA articles, and stops editing entirely at the same time that the IP range stops editing HoA articles for a week.
 * Evidence connecting all of the 2601:280:CB02::/50 range, ZemenfesKidus, and BeteAmora:
 * As pointed out by Magherbin, Magherbin filed this SPI on 4:12, 27 May, . Two minutes later the IP range stopped editing, and six minutes later the BeteAmora account was created.
 * As also pointed out by Magherbin, all of the IP range, ZemenfesKidus and BeteAmora added Arab cuirassiers to the same page.   Since Ottoman Arabia doesn't even mention the word "cuirassiers", this seems highly idiosyncratic.
 * This article was created by ZemenfesKidus and has further practically only been edited by the IP range, BeteAmora, and 98.50.109.164, another US IP belonging to the same 98.50.108.0/22 range as 98.50.110.56 who reinstated a BeteAmora edit elsewhere  (already alluded to above).
 * Evidence connecting to the 98.50.108.0/22 range:
 * Apart from the evidence relating to Battle of Wadkaltabu and Ethiopian–Adal War directly above, the 98.50.108.0/22 has also edited Talk:2000 Mules, an article wholly unrelated to HoA which is heavily edited by the 2601:280:CB02::/50 range:    vs 2601:280:CB02::/50 contribs, see especially edits between 28 May and 4 June (note also the edits to Gregg Phillips, who appears in the 2000 Mules film).
 * The 98.50.108.0/22 also appears on other articles heavily edited by the 2601:280 range, ZemenfesKidus, and BeteAmora: see, e.g., the history here. The timestamps, however, as also here, suggest that they are a meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet.
 * The other evidence provided by Magherbin is a bit intransparent and seems to necessitate a background knowledge of the underlying content disputes.
 * Note that if one adds the 2601:280:c001:d690::/64 IPs which previously were suspected to be Zemenfeskidus (archive) and some of whose evidence I have used here, the range broadens to 2601:280:c000::/36. There may be some edits in that range not by our sockmaster here (e.g. ), but not many.
 * To summarize: there is enough behavioral evidence here to conclude that the 2601:280:c000::/36 range is heavily used by ZemenfesKidus and that BeteAmora is a sock of ZemenfesKidus. 98.50.108.0/22 looks like a meatpuppet. However, I would suggest a CU check BeteAmora and look for other accounts, the existence of which does not seem unlikely. Finally, I think it's worth noting that though Zemenfeskidus was found technically unrelated to, there was much behavioral similarity (see the two filings here). The 2601:280 IP range has also been found to reinstate edits by Walkerdude47 socks . It would therefore probably be wise to check BeteAmora and any other possible accounts found against the most recent Walkerdude47 socks.


 * ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I posted the above at 9 June, 14:44, BeteAmora started editing heavily again on 9 June, 17:38. On the same day, all of BeteAmora, 98.50.110.50, and 2601:280:cb02:4fc6:e832:e3bf:6923:702c started to bombard Magherbin's talk page (history) with warnings.
 * since you concur that the 2601:280:CB02::/50 range seems to have minimal collateral damage, and since they're very actively editing on it, could you please block it? I think there's more than evidence enough here to block BeteAmora (sock) without CU too, as well as 98.50.108.0/22 (meat). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just quickly looking at some recent contribs, BeteAmora, the 98.50.108.0/22 range, and the 2601:280:CB02 range have recently been active here and here and here. The IPs only here, one of the IPs and BeteAmora here and here. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 10:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , there's another SPI case which has stumped CU's, the range seems to have possibly multiple unrelated masters. See . Magherbin (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've added 2601:280:CB02:0:0:0:0:0/50, which is the range calculated by the already-listed IPs; the collateral damage of a range block seems minor. Also,, you added BeteAmora without any evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - there's a lot going on here, but as a start, I think a CU comparison of BeteAmora to ZemenfesKidus is justified based on the evidence provided by Apaugasma. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is a mess. I've taken a few looks at this over the past few weeks.  Now that it's endorsed, I guess I should report what I've found.  ZemenfesKidus, BeteAmora, BlakeWashington, and Makofakeoh (the later two from Sockpuppet investigations/Makofakeoh) are all  to each other.  ZemenfesKidus and BeteAmora are  to each other.   The problem is, it's wide IP ranges and fairly common user agents, so I'm hesitant to go any further. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. The behavioural evidence in combination with the CU results is convincing. - please indef BeteAmora as a proven sock of ZemenfesKidus. The IPv6 range, which based on the evidence is clearly being used by ZemenfesKidus/BeteAmora (and others), is already blocked. I believe the IPv4 range is also used by this sockmaster. Besides the evidence listed above, the editor on this range uses the same edit summary style as the named accounts. There is some geolocation weirdness going on but the geolocations of the IPv4 and IPv6 ranges match based on Bullseye (and it's  an odd place for this kind of editing to be coming out of). Therefore, please also block  for 3 months (anon-only, account creation blocked) - they have been on the range since April and there appears to be minimal collateral.As to whether WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Makofakeoh is related or just someone else sharing the same ranges, obviously I cannot know who is actually sitting at the computer. However, since the behaviour of the named accounts in these two groups is very distinct, I think it makes sense to keep the cases separate. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked the IP range for 3 months, and blocked and tagged BeteAmora. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Well, there is this edit reminiscent of some of master's edits to talk pages before, like this, the IP in that edit is /22 range blocked for 3 months because of this case.

Beyond that, the intersection list, including some obscure entries, between this account with 134 edits and the previous BeteAmora account defies coincidence. Pika voom Talk 10:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

ZKDemelash restored an edit originally added by Betamora which I had reverted see the placement of Oromo in the infobox on Battle of Chelenqo. . Lender1 should also be looked into, as soon as the Betamora account was blocked this account made an edit very similar to the master account that states a dynasty ended which is a favorite line for this sock. Lender1 also uses the same term "misuse" in the edit summary identical to an older sock, Walkerdude47. The obscure article Jamal ad-Din II was a mess because of these socks and you will find ZemenfesKidus there as well as Walkerdude47. Magherbin (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Well, this is interesting. After watching this case for weeks and not seeing the smoking gun I needed, the additional data available today provided it.  ZemenfesKidus, ZKDemelash, and BeteAmora are all now ✅ to each other.  Lender1 is apparently ❌, but there's good evidence of proxy use (a WiFi net which geolocates to 1000 km off the coast of Antarctica?) so  is probably a better fit. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I came back and took another look at this. I don't see anything about Lender that screams sock to me, so closing with no further action. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
The two IP addresses share the same interest in the Horn of African history. ZemenfesKidus has been known for using different IP addresses like these two banned addresses. As I was reverting Zemen socks. These two IP users appeared and undid my revision in both these articles by restoring Zemen's sock revisions. When looking closely at these IP accounts you see they share similar interests for example when Beta Amhara was editing the antiquity and early modern section, this IP account appeared and further contributed to it. Even claims that he/she reviewed the content made by the sock that I just undid and claims it was "verified and in good faith edit". Clearly this new editor that just joined as soon as Beta Amhara (Zemen sock puppet) was banned is now restoring and promoting Zemen editions. Ayaltimo (talk) 15:52, 03 July 2022 (UTC)

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

BetAmora's last comment on their talk page is that their edits will be restored and they're in "good faith" much like what the IP stated 5 hours later. The sock edits need to be reverted regardless if they're problematic or not as they violated their editing restriction and if we allow their content to be left, it will encourage them to keep socking. Added new account Roy744 restoring sock edits on Medri Bahri, the account has even requested another user to try and restore the sock edits I had reverted 3 days ago on Medri bahri. . Magherbin (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Roy744 is clearly linked to the accounts in Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi838r/Archive checkuser blocked by User:Doug Weller. Roy744 on Yohannes IV is doing the same thing as socks David8374 and Dave7475. Should the Gabi838r SPI case be merged here? Pika voom  Talk 09:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I flagged this with CUrequest because there is a named account now that can be checked and Doug's comment below. Pika voom  Talk 10:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

One of the IP's posted on my talk page, another user has replied to the IP , this user had previously replied to BetAmora on a separate talk page and has become aggressive with personal attacks in edit summaries/talk pages since the block of BetAmora  Both the sock and YonasJh personally attacking on the same article. Not sure if its collusion but the account even restored edits by another blocked IP. Magherbin (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I can't confirm the above but there is something odd going on. I was wondering about the connections myself. This needs someone with more CU expertise than I have to investigate it. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've confirmed Roy744 to Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi838r. I'm not seeing anything in the CU data which makes me think the two cases are otherwise related.   -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The named account has been merged to another case and the IPs haven't edited in a couple of weeks, so I'm going to close this. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This seems to be a sock that has returned much like their previous accounts removes referenced material Re-adds same material I reverted after identifying the sock. Does the same here  Begins editing two articles that the master has created. Reverts to sock edits here as well  &. Another indication is that they continue removing this photo on multiple country pages. I believe they're using the same 2601 range of IP's in previous filings by me, the IP has just edited an obscure article I created using "ce" in the edit summary see also this usage and reversion of same ip range edit. Another instance of the same photo removal but this time reversion of the blocked IP range listed above. WP:Duck. Magherbin (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

See also the revision history of Oromo people, where Ethiopique reinstates  this edit by previously confirmed sock BeteAmora (deleting sourced information, claiming it to be "incorrect" based on vague claims about "talk pages for the aforementioned 'tribes' and any sources on the topic"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Ethiopique is ✅.    -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - Please move case to Ethiopique and retag. Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved case, retagged socks. - please block  for two weeks (anon-only, account creation blocked). It's obviously them (same topic area and same ISP/range as previous IP socks). The block will probably have to be widened at some point but AFAICT all of the recent sock editing is coming out of this range. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 02:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This sockpuppetry first began in August at my user talk page, and then started up again in November at WP:BLPN. Here's the link from August, and here's the link from November. As you can see from the August link, he explicitly acknowledged being logged out ("I’m away from my computer until tomorrow and don’t have my password and login information readily available"), but refused to give his username when specifically asked by me ("If you disclose your username, maybe I’ll read what you have to say....You don’t need to log in to disclose your username"), almost certainly because I had reminded him only a week earlier that he was banned from my user talk page (see details on the ban from my user talk page here at the talk page of User:Drmies). That briefly summarizes the sockpuppetry in August that I linked at the outset. I also linked November sockpuppetry above, and that involved lots of disparaging remarks at BLPN (the wrong place for it), including that I had been released from a TBAN by "begging", et cetera. That stuff at BLPN mentions "the 2020 Trump coup-attempt by inserting pov-pushing OR Jan 6th denialism" which is a dead giveaway because I had disagreements with NewsAndEventsGuy at those two topic areas; for example, see this complaint I filed about him at ANI (one week before the August sockpuppetry), this discussion between him and me about coups, etc, etc. Notice that 6 days after the August sockpuppetry on my user talk, he was using the same IP address to edit about coups, which again confirms this was all the same person.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP174.215.18.76 says I have not “properly informed” the subject of this SPI. However, the instructions here at SPI say, “you may wish to notify the accused” which is therefore optional.  An admin recently told me, “if you have such evidence, you should start an SPI and not post accusations on someone's talk page” so I didn’t post about this at the talk page of the subject of this SPI.  As for the other comments here by IP174.215.18.76, they seem irrelevant here, but please let me know if they’re relevant in which case I will respond to them.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IP76, I don’t know if you are a registered user or not, but you seem experienced and should understand (1) that if the evidence I gave is correct then the user in question was using a sockpuppet to evade a restriction on editing at my user talk, and (2) using a sockpuppet to raise conduct issues at BLPN while canvassing there for support to bring an action against me (e.g. two days after the end of a discussion he pinged only editors who had disagreed with me the most). So it was sockpuppetry regardless of whether there was “harassment”, and in any event putting together this SPI request (which included reviewing the pertinent rules and the edits in question), I do believe that there was indeed harassment, even though such is not necessary to sustain this SPI request. Again, the rest of your comments seem irrelevant, but if they are deemed relevant then I would like an opportunity to respond.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy says this is “an attempt to harrass, if not just generic paranoia.” No, I don’t think I’ve ever filed one of these SPI requests during 18 years at Wikipedia.  I just want to stop the harassment, have my user page respected, et cetera.  If this user would simply deny being either of these IPs, I’d take that a lot more seriously than just accusing me of stuff.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would you trust a denial from someone you accused of chicanery? Answer: a sane person would not. Therefore, either you're lacking competence or you're not making this SPI in good faith.  Dear User:Doug Weller, or any other checkuser.... I invite and request you run a check user to put an end to this nonsense. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn’t say that I’d trust a denial, I said I’d take it more seriously than a bunch of vague and unsupported counter-accusations. The reason is that many people who engage in the latter would not engage in flat-out lying, which is what a false denial would be. Likewise, many people would be willing to engage in chicanery, but not flat-out lying in a serious proceeding like this one.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tamzin for investigating this matter, for finding out who is responsible for the SP, and for exonerating User:NewsAndEventsGuy.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Sidenote: If ‘anything’ qualifies for a BOOMERRANG to an ANI to reinstate user “anythingyouwant’s” original TBAN it is this textbook example of WP:GAMING,pot-kettle abuse by him.

LONG-VERSION(skip to TL;DR version below if you must): AYM clearly promised to be on his best behavior AFTER his last TBAN and his knee-jerk attack against this other editor smacks of bad faith. This frivolous vindictive SPI is yet another example of him failing to keep his promise to keep drama to a minimum. “Anythingyouwant” promised in his desperate TBAN appeal to (quote him)
 * “However, in the future, if I encounter substantial resistance to enforcing BLP, then I promise to take the matter to BLPN and editors there can make an exception to BLP if they wish to treat a particular living person differently from all the other living people. I won’t edit-war about it, even if I profoundly disagree.” And “ I promise never again to criticize another editor on my own talk page.”(a quick superficial glance at his talk history in recent weeks alone and months shows he broke this promise repeatedly)

I include all this because when a troublesome veteran editor who knows better has just been allowed to return from a TBAN for previous editwarring and gaming behaviors and decides to start gaming SPIs rather than just chill out as he’s been warned again AND AGAIN in recent weeks, then this SPI can not be taken seriously as anything more than ongoing proof that his TBAN exists for a reason.

TL;DR version: this ongoing drama by this previously banned member “Anythingyouwants” belongs in an ANI, not here—- especially when it’s clear to any veteran editor that user “newsandeventsguy” is NOT socking but being scapegoated for everything AYW passive-aggressively hates about Wikipedia, his broken promises not to attack editors on his talk page not withstanding (e.g. recent example).lol 174.215.18.76 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Anythingyouwant Hmmmm, since you want to go there: you’ve been around long enough to know that trying to weaponize or game Wikipedia policy is very ”relevant”, hence why a WP:BOOMERANG can happen—- a necessary deterrent to discourage disruptive trolls with an agenda. Case in point: the admin you mention ALSO told you NOT to make “serious allegations” WITHOUT “solid evidence”. You conveniently left that out.
 * On the merits alone you offer anecdotal evidence at best that user “newsandeventsguy” was IP-socking and you even confess that said IP remarks on your talk page were “not harassment” but “harsh” at best. So why the SPI at all in the bigger scheme of things? Lol Is that “relevant” enough for you? Lol
 * Again, you conveniently leave out that the admin was warning you against going down this road and he/she even called you out for “cheap shots” and WP:HOUNDING. I will give you enough credit to know the difference after being here for years. The burden of proof is on you, the accuser. Period. Not the other way around.
 * And that you even also confess that you could’ve informed the accused of your serious accusations but chose not to fits a WP:GAMING mindset given your previous history of edit-warring that got you banned before.
 * TL;DR version:You sought to exploit the advice the admin gave you rather than honestly acknowledging it for what it obviously was—- yet ANOTHER warning from others “to work things out” BEFORE resorting to conflict.
 * Again, there is drama you keep instigating and since you’re defiantly unhappy with how Wikipedia works then it belongs in an AE or ANI, not here or on the take pages of articles, and clearly you very well knew this BEFORE filing your frivolous SPI.174.215.18.76 (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear IP, beats me what you have against Anythingyouwant, but for God's sake.... leave me out of it, please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting to me how 174.215.18.76 is so vehemently defending NewsAndEventsGuy and saying he's a scapegoat of AYW. The second then says, in a rather odd manner "Dear IP"
 * Not that I particularly trust either Neither has particularly convinced me, just saying. Also January 6 was 2021, not 2020. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See Salutation NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @NewsAndEventsGuy @Augusthorsesdroppings10 It’s obvious that he’s a sock. He’s doing the classic arguing with himself shtick to throw us off. The clock is broken twice a day truth is he should’ve probably gone to an AE sooner. That he doesn’t makes it clear he has something to fear and is stalking AYW. Even if he’s bringing in a buddy of his from a different IP to help him troll AYM then that is still meatpuppetry and he should be indeffed on those grounds. He even sounds like the socks. Interesting timing indeed. 50.211.226.97 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm no longer participating in this discussion, no need to ping me. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It automatically does that. Thx for the heads up. Good insights. 2601:282:1F03:12FC:B573:49DB:4F48:9F6C (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the strikeout above was a result of this sidebar, and it is very much appreciated thanks, Augusthorsedroppings10. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Response by the accused, User:NewsAndEventsGuy A rootin' tootin' checkuser ought to establish this report as an attempt to harrass, if not just generic paranoia.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think you already have my IRL name (via email). Would you please run a checkuser, before anyone draws the wrong conclusion from more circumstantial review of contribs? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we don’t normally do self requests if only because CU can’t actually prove there is no link. Leaving this for a clerk to deal with. I will protect tha talk page. Doug Weller  talk 18:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Sees Fort Collins IP. Sees strong opinions on 2016 U.S. presidential election. Looks at the /64's edts. Yup. Talk:2000 Mules, as expected. This is Ethiopique, my friends. Case closed and moved without redirect. IPv6 /64 blocked 2 months. Ethiopique has been CU'd enough times that I think we can safely say NAEG is not them. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 10:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also a finding of fact that the IP that commented here is an Ethiopique sock; cf. from the same /20. No point in blocking at this point, though.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 10:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Added text to Kingdom of Aksum in, identical to text added by user Shehb32 in. Shehb32 identified as a sockpuppet of user Ethiopique. Similar repetition of Shehb32 edits at Semien Province ( versus ), Ankober ( versus ), Dabat ( versus ), Debarq ( versus ), Debre Tabor ( versus ), & Sarsa Dengel ( versus ). Pathawi (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2022 (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

 * , DatGuyTalkContribs 06:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ to Ethiopique, but ✅ to Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi838r – reblocked. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Repetition of edits from sockpuppet Yaeq00 yesterday (confirmed sockpuppet of Ethiopique) to Jijiga ( versus ) & Ankober ( versus ). Pathawi (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2022 (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

 * pending Sockpuppet_investigations/Gabi838r. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ to Ethiopique, ✅ to Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi838r. Handled there. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This partially-blocked IP is now disruptively editing Louis Purnell, adding unsourced material multiple times. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

sorry about that, I took a quick look at the IP's "Contributions" page and saw "This IP address is currently partially blocked" - I did not see how massive the range was that was partially blocked. You are correct, it's probably a different disruptive IP editor that just happened to fall into the same range. My bad. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -, what is the evidence that this IP belongs to Ethiopique beyond being part of the same IP range? A /26 is a massive range that will be shared by many different users. The IP's edits do not seem to be in keeping with Ethiopique's usual interests. Spicy (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, closing. Spicy (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
The four mobile IP addresses were repeatedly adding unsourced box office information and analysis information to Clerks III. I filed a vandalism report noting that the same IP addresses were from a range that Ethiopique edits from. That entire range is blocked from editing Talk:2000 Mules. It was stated that the range was very large though and that if the edits weren't political in nature, it was unlikely to be Ethiopique. Editor, using the 2601:282:8100:32a0:59ed:25c7:2ee8:3fe0 IP began posting vandalism accusations on my talk page. After a quick back and forth, I made it known that the discussion wasn't welcome on my talk page and to take it to the article talk page instead. It was then that they switched to the 50.208.24.165 IP and made a post on my talk page, clearly indicating that it was the same person. When looking up that IP's contributions, it shows that they too have been blocked from the Talk:2000 Mules page, as has Ethiopique. So it looks to have been Ethiopique all along. NJZombie (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
 * I’m not affiliated with the other apparently banned user he keeps WP:HOUNDING. Either he’s confused or trying to stir the pot with his row against me. Blaming us for his feud with him is not his right.


 * For the record, I’m an employee of the Lyric theater in Colorado and some members of our cinema-lovers club do occasional editing from our public computers. I’m sure there is the occasional troll from here given these are public computers. However this zealous user taunted me into coming to his profile page to debate them only for him to change his mind without warning and revert my counter-argument out of spite. That’s his right. Then the other aforementioned allegedly-banned user that he was also taunting jumped in to apparently fan the flames.


 * I have no desire to debate this editor anymore on his profile page, nor become entangled in his drama. I told him to resume his debate with me on the article’s forum page if he must.


 * tl;dr version— I’m only responding because of his false accusations of vandalism and sockpupperty against our company IP address. Told him to file an SPI here rather than drag his drama to all these other places. Not sure this will go anywhere though. Blocking the IP range most of Colorado over a vanilla dispute over an inconsequential movie’s box office success seems excessive to me. For that reason I can’t imagine it’s worth the time and effort. But go for it guys if there are bigger fish to fry and I’m missing something here. IMHO it feels like this zealous editor is simply overreacting but what do I know? 2601:282:8100:32A0:95E1:D373:5241:8C19 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that must be it. Multiple patrons of the same theater are using their computers AND posting via mobile phone to Talk:2000 Mules and all being blocked. NJZombie (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked the /64 range for 2 weeks. Th3 50. IP was partially blocked last December for 6 months, and they haven't done much, so rather than have to remember to reinstate the partial block if I block them sitewide, I'm taking no action. If they persist, though, feel free to reopen. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bbb23 but editor continues to make the same edit to Clerks III despite block and makes it known that it’s them. Can article get some level of protection as well? NJZombie (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
BaklavaEnjoyer: vs ;  vs ;  vs ;  vs

Ras mekonnen4334 was first filed under Gabi838r but was found to be likely a different user.

However, Ras mekonnen4334 did reinstate a large number of Gabi838r edits ( vs ; vs ;  vs ;  vs ;  vs ). This is a known Ethiopique behavior (e.g., vs ; see also the frequent confusion between the two users in the archives of both Gabi838r and Ethiopique).

Ras mekonnen4334 has created multiple accounts (see Sockpuppet investigations/Ras mekonnen4334), which may indicate longer-term socking. Both Ethiopique and Ras mekonnen4334 produce seemingly high-quality edits (early Ethiopique socks such as were blocked for edit warring and disruptive behavior towards other editors, but not for their mainspace edits, which were pretty good). All of this strongly suggests that Ras mekonnen4334 may be Ethiopique.

when handling the Gabi838r case, did you check whether Ras mekonnen4334 and their other accounts are related CU-wise to Ethiopique sock BaklavaEnjoyer, as I asked there? This may be important, because if Ras mekonnen4334 is not Ethiopique, their seemingly high-quality edits indicate that they may in fact be a user well worth trying to keep onboard (if they stick to one account and respect copyrights rules). On the other hand, if they are Ethiopque, their edits should probably be reverted per wp:evade. Hence why I ask for CU again. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 12:27, 19 July 2023 (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've compared against what we have in the records for Ethiopique, and I'd call it ❌ - different continents. The data is from last year, and it's always possible since people do move, but I've got nothing connecting them. I would not be opposed to unblocking if they can give a reasonable explanation for why they were using multiple accounts to edit the same articles, and indicated that they would stick to one account in future and observe our copyright policies. Closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  12:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Edit warring of Medri Bahri article by user محرر البوق. The article has had history of similar edits by user BeteAmora and ZemenfesKidus, who has been a confirmed sockets of master sock Ethiopique. Has similar behaviour by changing the article and pushing views without regards to sources and the formed consensus of the article. Judging by the investigation socket user also removes referenced material which is similar by this user, compared to some of BetaAmore ,. The user edited Medri Barhi article during the same period as BeteAmora in 2022. The user edits same Ethiopia related articles and focuses on same content, for instance adal war and related content to islamic battles in Horn of Africa. Another observation from the socket investigations is these users habits of editing the Battle of Harar article, here is this user. Another article of interest is the Adal Sultanate. User ZemenfesKidus blocked March 2022. In begining of april 2022 the user محرر البوق rapidly starts editing more frequently same content, more than it had done between the years 2018 and March 2022 altogether. Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Completely ridiculous accusation made in the middle of a content dispute. Ethiopique has been CU'd enough times by now so I don't think that this should be entertained. محرر البوق (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The reported user's account predates the master's by several years and has never shown up in past CU checks. The behavioural evidence is not particularly convincing and I note that the filer has since been blocked. Closing without further action. Spicy (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Duck:  &   Requesting CU as well due to history of user.

The user is restoring the similar content from a blocked IP (2601 range) which was used by master Ethiopique. The Article Negus was a favorite of theirs and this user has restored edits of theirs. On Chewa regiments, the user readded the block evading Ip's large content under the philosophy section. I think this should be moved to Ethiopique sock here's another duck edit  Magherbin (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2023 (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

 * No comment on the IP, but if ሰይፍ is Gabi838r, they have moved continents. I think that more evidence would need to be provided for any action to be taken.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Since no new evidence has been provided in a week, I'm closing this.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  01:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved here from Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi838r.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , did you mean to histmerge the two cases? It's my understanding, per etc., that Ethiopique and Gabi838r are technically unrelated. Spicy (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to history-merge. wrote above if ሰይፍ is Gabi838r, they have moved continents. As, I understood, that means that ሰይፍ and Gabi838r are different users.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  09:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , it looks like the cases were history merged and now the archive contains filings from both cases. Spicy (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, only the current case was merged here. All previous cases are still in the history of the Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi838r page, and have not been merged here.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, seems like I misread the history. 10:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)