Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inactive user 20171/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The sockmaster, previously called, was indefinitely topic-banned from topics related to the Iberian Peninsula and from politics on 9 June 2017 for continued POV-pushing and disruptive editing, especially regarding the Basque conflict and the ETA (separatist group):. He was subsequently indefinitely blocked by on 14 June 2017 for continued harassment of other editors:. That same day, he chose to have his account renamed and to become "inactive":. Nevertheless, he continued to block-evade via various IPs, as reported by, which IPs were rangeblocked for one month on 16 July 2017:. was created on 18 July 2017, and is an SPA devoted to making the same kinds of POV edits regarding the Basque Conflict that Asilah1981 was topic-banned and then eventually indeffed for:. I've been reverting his edits (which are clearly POV and against policy) and warning him about POV and about edit-warring, but he persists.

Please CU, and if possible also check for any other IPs he may be socking under, since he has done that as recently as three weeks ago. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I am pinging and, who have been trying to keep the Basque Conflict articles neutral, in case they have any comments. Softlavender (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I quit this article some time ago, which I consider to have been ruined by combative, POV pushing editors with a Spanish nationalist over-zeal. The sockmaster will keep going with different usernames that act the same as Asilah1981, very easily identified for 1. the articles frequented with a history of previous litigation 2. the edit log/sequences, 3. unanswerable towards community input (almost never edit summaries, since they may provide a clue in language expression), 4. same obsessions. I will dare bring up a like case here, topic Iberian Peninsula ('section' Reconquista), notice all the red link usernames. Check also Canbear87 in Culture of Spain and the (not so) Inactive user20171], with Asilah1981's well-known linguistic-historic-genetic concerns, and gratuitous editing with no concern for verifiability.
 * I am worried that the EN WP does not have a straightforward way to deal with this. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Iñaki LL, I'm sorry, but this isn't very helpful: if you wish any of us to investigate other accounts, you'll have to present diffs and explanations. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, as I pointed out, I was virtually expelled from the article out of exhaustion, so I have not followed the action of this seemingly one-purpose account, but you just need WP:DUCK to realize, if you are willing to, or you can keep the sockmaster doing what he does best, fool the system and drain productive editors. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 

Editing patterns are rather similar, including the revert warring.



E.g. removing what the editor considers to be ETA propaganda. The account creation also coincides with blocks, which is circumstantial evidence. A checkuser would be of some benefit but I'm not convinced it would be definitive, since the editor concerned was coached how to avoid checkuser. Overall, I'm inclined to think WP:ROPE might be in order, the evidence is suggestive of socking but not definitive enough for a block. WCM email 21:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: If the editor is not going to be CUed, DUCKed, or blocked, could all of you (Iñaki LL,, , Drmies, etc.) please put (or put back) Basque conflict and ETA (separatist group) on your watchlists? The user is edit-warring defiantly and aggressively on those articles (in exactly the way the sockmaster did), despite warnings. Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Post-CU comment: Thanks, ; I had started a list of Ceasar'sGhost diffs, but Inactive user 20171's edits to the main article were too numerous to investigate thoroughly and too hard to define succinctly for me to select and describe his diffs without spending a whole lot of time on it. One disturbing thing about the CU findings is that has no crossover with the material, has made less than 500 edits, and his first two edits were to create redirects, which seems to indicate an experienced editor masquerading as a new one. I have a feeling we are getting played on many levels by all of these editors. The fact that Asilah1981 chose to change his account name to "Inactive user" immediately upon being indeffed, and the fact that he has been repeatedly block-evading via IPs, and the fact that he "was coached how to avoid checkuser" (according the WCM above), and the fact that his MO was to constantly game the system, and the fact that IPs on both articles have been repeatedly changing the term "separatist group" to "terrorist group" -- all of these things make me think we have someone, or a group, on our hands whose MO is to game not only the WP system but also to spoof their own location(s)/IP(s). Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh he was definitely coached in block evasion. Softlavender may have something there does appear to be a pattern in this. WCM email 10:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank you both for your commitment to a disruption-free WP, the easiest way sometimes seems to just give up on this time and attention consuming pursuit of detecting sabotage to the WP principles, i.e. WP:NOTHERE. I have experience with Checkuser evasion regarding this very editor (whomever lies behind), topic Reconquista, and he evaded it, Checkuser is not reliable. The sockmaster is about the WP and how to circumvent its rules, easy to spot for those of us who have interacted with him but very difficult to act if we continue to stick to just diffs.
 * The editor in question acts removing content (whole sentences, paragraphs), based on opinion, with no edit summaries or leaving very telling dismissive statements, like "such guy has no clue", or putting the burden on others, like "you did not answer my question", clearly uncooperative, then engaging in edit warring unless he feels he may be detected. He acts in short sequences then vanishes to other articles where other editors who have litigated with him do not edit.
 * Sorry this may not have added diffs, I am tight now in other on- and off-Wikistuff, and cannot dwell much on this, but would like to point out these deficiencies with structural overtones, since it affects WP extensively. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You must be joking... Edggjhh (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can someone please close this and block these editors? is still at large and is still wreaking havoc, such as blanking entire articles: . -- Softlavender (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * One of the IP was back yesterday, posting nonsense about Catalan nationalism. WCM email 07:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Now blocked. WCM email 07:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , I checked dozens of diffs in Basque conflict and did not see anything conclusive that links Caesar'sGhost to the Vanished account. I'll be happy to run CU, but only with a good reason. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I can't find a duck without diffs. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do see the pattern (and entirely too much edit warring), though, Softlavender, your presentation of evidence is not the best. That said, all I can tell you is that Caesar'sGhost is ✅ to match . Courcelles (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * for and  based on CU evidence. Requesting closure as remaining evidence appears to be inconclusive to link to  at the moment. Alex ShihTalk 05:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Inactive user 20171 was indef blocked on 14 June 2017, having previously been topic-banned on topics relating to the Iberian Peninsula. Gaditano23 was created on 23 June 2017, and has edited almost exclusively on topics relating to the Iberian Peninsula, including Almería and Ceuta, where Inactive user 20171 was previously active. Gaditano23 has not edited articles where Inactive user 20171 was disruptive, such as Catalan Countries, but note the similarity between this and this edit of Inactive user 20171 on Catalan Countries, and this edit of Gaditano23 to Catalans, as well as this removal of a WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries banner from Balearic Islands. Earlier similarities include arguing about the climate of Almería – Inactive user 20171 reverting an IP and Gaditano23 reverting the same IP; both arguing the same points at Talk:Almería and Talk:Almería – and a propensity to try to overturn the closure of discussions: Inactive user at Catalan Countries and Gaditano here and here at 2017 Catalonia attacks. Scolaire (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Another unusual thing I've noticed: a suggestion that an article be based on the corresponding article on Spanish Wikipedia. Here is Inactive user last year at Catalan independence, and here is Gaditano two days ago at Catalan independence referendum, 2017. Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, I should also say that according to his user page Gaditano is from Cádiz and lives in Barcelona. I am precluded from saying too much about Inactive user's background because he had his identity deleted for apparently valid reasons, but I can say that he was not from Cádiz and I don't think he was resident in Barcelona. He didn't even claim to be a native Spanish speaker. He was not a good liar, and it would not be typical of him to put something like that on the user page of a sockpuppet account. I am not by any means convinced that Gaditano is a sockpuppet, but there are enough grounds for suspicion to ask for an investigation. Scolaire (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to state for the record that Inactive user has never been proven to have edited at any time since his block, never mind "disguising his IP on multiple accounts from CheckUser". There has only been one previous SPI, which found the evidence unconvincing. This ANI thread, which is often cited as "proof", is in fact a case of a disruptive IP, who frequently edit-warred with Inactive user (and later with Gaditano), changing Inactive user's old signature to his new name. There was no instance of that IP pushing Inactive user's POV, and multiple instances of him pushing a POV that was the exact opposite of Inactive user's. This SPI should be based on the evidence above, and not on unsupported statements about previous socking. Scolaire (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Recognise the style instantly, thats the same user. WCM email 17:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that following the block the user was coached in evading checkuser and creating sock puppet accounts. WCM email 14:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it worth noting though? He never asked for it. Some random person just posted it to his talk page, and it was quickly deleted. Scolaire (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is, he seemed to use some of the advice to disguise his IP on multiple accounts from CheckUser. WCM email 19:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, User:Wee Curry Monster. The first and last time I heard from you here, you were accusing another editor of being this "inactive user" and requested my support. Is everything ok, did I miss something since then?Gaditano23 (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Btw, what happened to this character?Gaditano23 (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Scolaire Following your request on my talk page to respond to this. I will do so in perfect civility. If, as you state, you are not sure about your accusations, if there is no evidence of simultanous use of multiple accounts, if there is no abusive editing, no edit warring on the same articles as this user etc... then a SPI/Checkuser is not acceptable according to Wikipedia Policy. There are strict policy restrictions on the use of such tools since they are extremely invasive in terms of personal privacy. That Spaniards edit on articles related to Spain and (especially nowadays - no one here talks about anything else) Catalonia is not grounds for suspicion. This is quite normal. Neither is an Andalusian editing on Andalusian towns, my main purpose here is editing on Andalusian cities and most of them are on my watchlist... I would have appreciated you approaching me personally on this first. It feels quite hostile. Un Saludo,Gaditano23 (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I had hoped you would explain how you came to use almost the exact same wording as an editor who had disappeared before you registered when making a POV edit to a different article. If a blocked editor creates a new account to edit, or a topic-banned editor creates a new account to edit articles within that topic, then it is abusive sockpuppetry. If I suspect that that is happening, then it is reasonable to ask for an investigation. Should I have asked you on your talk page first? Possibly, but I can't turn the clock back now. Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Scolaire I had a quick look at that particular edit. It is a very obvious mistake requiring correction and a highly controversial one at that, especially nowadays in which this topic has so much media exposure within our country. Probably 80% of the Spanish (or for that matter Valencian/Balearic) population would have made exactly the same correction had they detected this sentence. I think maybe the problem here is Spaniards editing on English wikipedia? That is something we can't avoid... If an article says America was discovered in 1618 and two editors change the date to 1492 over a span of time T - is that evidence that they are the same editor? Anyways, I think we should take this to our talk pages. I have not engaged in an edit war with you, this is not the correct avenue for discussing differences of opinion. Gaditano23 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Account now blocked. Closing.