Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guilherme Styles/Archive

22 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Identical edits at George II of Great Britain. The Brazilian IP is from a range known to be used by Guilherme Styles. The likelihood of Nazivon independently noticing my revert of Guilherme Styles' IP edit is extremely remote. DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC) DrKiernan (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Similar article focus between [Brasil Telecom range -- identical to that used by Guilherme Styles] and  [NET Servi range -- identical to that used by Nazivon]. DrKiernan (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

"177.33.35.49" is my IP. I made the edit before login in, but when the edit got reversed, I logged in on my account, "Nazivon". My edit was not incorrect, as every other royalty article has their ancestry up to their great-great-grandparents (the blue boxes), and George II's article did not. I'm sorry if my actions were wrong, I only tried to change a section of the page to fit all others in Wikipedia. And I don't who is "Guilherme Styles". Yours sincerely, Nazivon. Nazivon (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"177.203.77.40" IP is from Rio Grande do Sul, VERY far from my location (São Paulo). I like royalty, and I often edit royalty articles, but there's other users who also often do it, so it's not farfetched to say we both have the same likes in common. Yours sincerely, Nazivon.Nazivon (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - There is enough evidence to endorse a CU check in this case. Nazivon can be compared to those socks of  that are not . Checking the IP is not possible and unnecessary, since the user admits using the IP.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  23:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * appears technically ❌ to Guilherme Styles or any other named account. This will need to be decided on the behavioural evidence. Yunshui 雲 水 09:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think we should archive this with no further action and wait. With time, it should become clearer whether the editing pattern is similar or different. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the behavioral evidence presented isn't enough for me to consider a block right now. I'm closing it with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 18:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same obscure interest in the weddings of pretend royals: such as the crown princes of Albania and Greece.

Same interest in the ducal families of Bourbon-Parma and Luxembourg DrKay (talk) 07:41, 30 October 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
The master is. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * in all three cases. 201 continues the master's obsession with adding flags to infoboxes, and both 187 and Fly Bender add honorifics to piped wikilinks (Fly Bender creates pages with them already piped), both of which are behaviours the master was warned for on their talk page and discussed at ANI, and all of this with a tight topic area overlap. The IPs are stale but please block . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, blocked. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same focus on the Austrian imperial family (see edit history of Template:Austrian Imperial Family, previously edited by former sock puppets, , and ) and similar user name to one of the last sock puppets,. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note identical edits: . Celia Homeford (talk) 10:52, 6 July 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
. DrKay (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same editing as the other sockpuppets, e.g. compare with  Celia Homeford (talk) 14:14, 12 November 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

 * The last time this sock was active was over a year ago. The edits you pointed out don't seem like enough to prove socking.  Royalty is a popular topic and lots of people have differing opinions on the correct titles to use.  This will take more evidence to convince me it's a sock.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ to previous socks. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Edits follow the characteristic pattern of bogus claims of royal pretendership. Guy (help!) 16:01, 22 May 2020 (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

 * Everything in the archives is stale. Unless you have a feeling that there are sleepers and want a sleepers check, I am not sure what CU is going to find? The SandDoctor  Talk 00:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , annoying, this is basically LTA. Guy (help!) 00:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have enough to compare this to from the archive but there are . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything specific here that makes me think sock. Previous cases mentioned "adding flags to infoboxes" and a "focus on the Austrian imperial family" neither of which I'm seeing here.  On the other hand, I said that the last time and they ended up being confirmed.  Lacking better evidence (specific diffs), I'd suggest closing with no action. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. Close without prejudice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No action taken, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Characteristic claims of Stuart pretendership to the throne. This is blocked, but please CU to check whether it's linked to the recently WP:DUCK blocked. Guy (help!) 16:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Guy (help!) 16:51, 31 May 2020 (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 two users are ❌ -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing per the above finding. The SandDoctor  Talk 05:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)