Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isseasa/Archive

04 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Isseasa is the parent company of the unaccredited university Politecnico di Studi Aziendali, which has been banned from the Canton of Ticino. They have been using several accounts to edit (or even blank) the article. 5.87.132.239 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politecnico_di_Studi_Aziendali&action=history Revision history]: all the consecutive edits from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politecnico_di_Studi_Aziendali&oldid=649655700 07:26, 3 March 2015] to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politecnico_di_Studi_Aziendali&oldid=649661328 08:52, 3 March 2015], and all the consecutive edits from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politecnico_di_Studi_Aziendali&oldid=649835931 13:18, 4 March 2015] to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politecnico_di_Studi_Aziendali&oldid=649840677 14:09, 4 March 2015], plus all the consecutive ones by Delphi35 until [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politecnico_di_Studi_Aziendali&oldid=631712037 05:10, 30 October 2014]. The account Maxsilverbis has only been used to edit talk pages. Please note that in the meantime Isseasa has been deleted by an admin.--94.163.33.238 (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Equalizerbis keeps vandalizing Politecnico di Studi Aziendali. Could anyone investigate? Thank you.--Adrin10 (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , could you provide some diffs to show how this users made similar edits to the article. Thanks.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  23:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding, , and as probable sockpuppets of this user, based on the revision history of Politecnico di Studi Aziendali, as well as [ this archived AN/I discussion].  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * might be this same user (and, if so, would be the oldest account and proper sockmaster). However, Delphi35's edits are all from last October, so I'm hesitant to assume a connection without more evidence (might be a duck, just not the same individual duck).  Note that  was indef-blocked on March 6 as an inappropriate (organizational, non-individual) username and was instructed to pick a new user name; I believe both Psauni and Unipsa1 are also references to Politecnico di Studi Aziendali, and on that basis I'm going to block them both indefinitely as inappropriate usernames.  I will also put a note on every account's talk page (including Delphi35), advising that this user needs to limit himself to a single, individual username and edit only in accordance with policy.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've indef-blocked all the sockpuppets (except for Delphi35), but with account creation enabled. I left a note on each account's talk page advising them of the possibility of choosing a new username that satisfies our policies (including, specifically, not looking like it's a reference to the Politecnico di Studi Aziendali).  I left a somewhat longer talk page message for Delphi35, which I said might or might not have been involved with this sockpuppetry.  I'll keep an eye on these accounts and this article, and if I see a resumption of sockpuppetry, I'll reinstate the account creation blocks.  I'll be closing this SPI now.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

26 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Due to Talk:Politecnico di Studi Aziendali (PSA) still being under semi-protection, three new accounts have appeared to spam user talk pages with the kind of material that has previously been added to the PSA talk page by previous socks (the users targeted have all been involved in dealing with some of those socks). Each has been blocked for block evasion per WP:DUCK. The blocking admin has suggested it would be a good idea to "hard-block the range" in order to stop new accounts arising, so I'm requesting CU involvement on that basis. VeryCrocker (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2015 (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

 * . Proxies are being used, so it's hard. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It would probably be wise to disable account creation on the earlier batch of socks (see my comments above). I left account creation enabled to give the person a chance to create a new account with an acceptable username; it would seem that my trust in their good faith was misplaced.  I don't have time to take care of this right now, but if some other admin can take care of it, please go ahead.  I've disabled account creation on the earlier batch of socks.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

27 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Just adding three new socks for completeness, they are all blocked per duck test.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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