Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iuscaogdan/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

203.190.36.250 and 203.190.37.250, which belongs to an Indonesian proxy, have been involved in an edit war at Help:IPA/Italian:. Despite other users' request to stop edit warring and start a discussion on the talk, they have never even filled in edit summaries and have only said anything meaningful on their talk page, User talk:203.190.36.250. Then, on that talk, another IP, 151.48.89.105, from northern Italy somehow replies to a comment directed at 203.190.36/37.250, then deletes it:. Then the Indonesian IP comes back and reinstates the reply:. What this indicates is that they forgot to use the proxy the first time round.

There was an unregistered user (or users) who insisted that the letter $⟨ɱ⟩$ be used in IPA transcriptions of Italian despite previous consensus and changed articles (whose IPs were affected by a range block, according to Horst Hof). That user took the issue to Aeusoes1's talk, through IPs all coming from northern Italy. Then Iuscaogdan, registered on January 2, posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics again insisting that $⟨ɱ⟩$ shall be used. That discussion remains to be Iuscaogdan's only substantive contribution, and they have admitted that they are the one who posted on Aeusoes1's talk after I requested that admins investigate if Iuscaogdan was a sock of Viviocon, who argued, very similarly to Iuscaogdan, that $⟨ɱ⟩$ be used, using a different account for each person they talked to. Bbb23 found Iuscaogdan to be unrelated to Viviocon, although I would appreciate if he explained why he came to that conclusion, given we know Viviocon was accessing Wikipedi through a web host. Also, both Viviocon and Iuscaogdan's reluctance to ever engage in a conversation at Help talk:IPA/Italian, the most obvious place to address their concerns, is peculiar to me, to say the least. I also note that there recently was an IP, again coming from a proxy, who asked, a newcomer to Wikipedia, about $⟨ɱ⟩$ on Commons, despite IPA editor having not even edited there. Nardog (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' By the way, please note that the IP that messaged me on my talk page is a Slovakian proxy. IPA editor (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(46.229.230.108) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPA editor (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

First a reply to IPA editor: I have nothing to do with you, and you have nothing to do with me, please don't let Nar_shameonyou_dog get you involved in his schemes like the Slovakian proxy user did. Now a comment for the admins: I'd already defended myself against his false accuses in the other investigation where I was acquitted, I'm adding just a few things. Have you read well what Nar_shameonyou_dog has written here? He's talking about other users, both registred and anonymous, but not about me. He talked about different IPs who did things I haven't ever done. Edit wars, and I haven't made any. The blocked sockpuppets, which did "forum-shopping" that I haven't done. But the worst is his deliberately lying about my "reluctance to ever engage in a conversation at Help talk:IPA/Italian": I've opened a discussion in the linguistic project talk page about "Dental allophones inconsistency/incoherence in some Help:IPA pages". Why should have I opened it in "Help talk:IPA/Italian" if it's about "some" Help:IPA pages? Reflect on this, admins, he's just trying to manipulate your judgement, if he'd thought he was right he wouldn't have needed such a cheap trick like lying about my behaviour to make me appear guilty. He knows I'm not and wants to get rid of me, that's why he's trying misleading and deceiving you. Those socks and IPs have done something bad so they deserve to be blocked, I haven't so I don't. It's so easy. Last but not least, I've just read in Nar_shameonyou_dog's talk page this thing: "Wikipedia is accessed by 500 million people every month. It's not at all inconceivable that multiple people have similar thoughts and decide to do something about it on Wikipedia within a short period of time. It's also possible that they're not the same person but were inspired by the same thing, like a post on the internet somewhere.". Who said this? Nar_shameonyou_dog himself. There're people in this world ready to put aside their own ideas when they feel personally involved in something where such ideas are in their way, I wonder if Nar_shameonyou_dog is among them and, in case he is, why he feels personally involved in this, I can't believe it's just because a veteran user doesn't want to allow new users to make good changes to something he's become accustumed to consider "his". Iuscaogdan (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't say negative things about Nardog. I'm sure he didn't really do anything wrong. If you keep doing so, then you'll be the one who's going to get blocked. IPA editor (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but why are you defending him? I've read most of his talk page today: weren't you too accused to be a sockpuppet while you aren't at all? And if you're sure he didn't do anything wrong (isn't hypocrisy wrong?) why do you believe I did, without even knowing me? You weren't involved in such a "drama", you involved yourself. Follow your friend's advice and let the thing speak for itself if you don't have anything useful to say here. I'd like to precise that I have nothing against you, you haven't done anything bad or unfair to me. Don't worry about this situation, this isn't about you and nobody has accused you of anything here. Iuscaogdan (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is Kbb2, not me, who was suspicious of IPA editor. Nardog (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if it was you or somebody else, that's why I didn't specify "who" accused him. Iuscaogdan (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I literally only registered a week ago, and I hate to already be involved in drama like this. So please do something to resolve the situation, if you can. IPA editor (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing I can do "to resolve the situation". An SPI clerk will conduct and close the investigation and we'll move on. Nardog (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. If you didn't manage to exasperate or corrupt the admins in some way you'll obtain the same risult as the last time and the probable future times you'll try again getting rid of me with false accusations. Iuscaogdan (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅ to socks like :
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to keep this open. Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to keep this open. Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How far below do I have to look? --Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 28 February 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
and I was pursuing Sockpuppet investigations/Ragaricus while looking. What is interesting is that the sock links to Sockpuppet investigations/84101e40247/Archive which is a good candidate for being Ragaricus based on the logs. Iuscaogdan is likely someone else's sock. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Cabayi (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Everybody's blocked. Closing. Cabayi (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)