Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ivan Clarin/Archive

13 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All have created similar userspace articles or worked on the userspace articles created by others (see contributions, some deleted &or oversighted...some examples include User:Ira Louisse Pelicano (original versions oversighted), User talk:Palmville, User talk:Jay Ann Dacles (original versions oversighted), and User_talk:Wrong Turn 3D). Some of the socks are already checkuser blocked but I couldn't find an SPI or an obvious master; as such, I'm filing this SPI with all the accounts I found and a request for checkuser. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Were you able to find any account that seems to be the master? That's an awful lot of accounts that just popped out of nowhere on November 10 last year. If not, I'll just ask one of the clerks to change the master to whichever of the November 10 accounts has the most edits. In the meantime, I'll start cleaning up talk pages and revoking talk access as you've instructed; if any of them turn out not related it's simple enough to undo. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 15:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , these are the accounts as far back as CU can see, and due to the nature of the editing, I'm not sure that the term "master" really even applies here. I'll leave it to you and/or the clerk team to decide what to do with it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have switched the master to . It's not the most prolific account, but it's got a couple hundred edits and it's the earliest created account (if only by less than an hour). Also, is there an IP or range block that can be made here? --Ks5stm (talk) [alternative account of Ks0stm] 17:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the range is a bit too busy for a block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:50, 14 February 2014 (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

 * ✅ (Names):
 * ✅ (Titles, places):
 * ✅, but don't quite fit the pattern:
 * Some of these accounts have had their edits suppressed, so it would be helpful for an oversighter to review this. Also, I wouldn't mind having another CU look this over, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted per DoRD's comment. All blocked so no need to do that. Will wait for the second look before tagging. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that they are all already tagged, but I would have preferred a thorough review / second CU opinion beforehand. In any case, many of the previously-blocked accounts, e.g. User talk:Joemel Arquillo, will need to have their talk pages cleaned up, and all confirmed accounts will need to have talk revoked to prevent recreation of the fake articles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've double checked the results and I was able to confirm nearly all of the results, apart from a couple of instances where the checkuser data is now too old. The only additional account I could find was, which I've blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil, I think we can close this now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ (Titles, places):
 * ✅, but don't quite fit the pattern:
 * Some of these accounts have had their edits suppressed, so it would be helpful for an oversighter to review this. Also, I wouldn't mind having another CU look this over, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted per DoRD's comment. All blocked so no need to do that. Will wait for the second look before tagging. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that they are all already tagged, but I would have preferred a thorough review / second CU opinion beforehand. In any case, many of the previously-blocked accounts, e.g. User talk:Joemel Arquillo, will need to have their talk pages cleaned up, and all confirmed accounts will need to have talk revoked to prevent recreation of the fake articles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've double checked the results and I was able to confirm nearly all of the results, apart from a couple of instances where the checkuser data is now too old. The only additional account I could find was, which I've blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil, I think we can close this now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ (Titles, places):
 * ✅, but don't quite fit the pattern:
 * Some of these accounts have had their edits suppressed, so it would be helpful for an oversighter to review this. Also, I wouldn't mind having another CU look this over, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted per DoRD's comment. All blocked so no need to do that. Will wait for the second look before tagging. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that they are all already tagged, but I would have preferred a thorough review / second CU opinion beforehand. In any case, many of the previously-blocked accounts, e.g. User talk:Joemel Arquillo, will need to have their talk pages cleaned up, and all confirmed accounts will need to have talk revoked to prevent recreation of the fake articles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've double checked the results and I was able to confirm nearly all of the results, apart from a couple of instances where the checkuser data is now too old. The only additional account I could find was, which I've blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil, I think we can close this now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ (Titles, places):
 * ✅, but don't quite fit the pattern:
 * Some of these accounts have had their edits suppressed, so it would be helpful for an oversighter to review this. Also, I wouldn't mind having another CU look this over, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted per DoRD's comment. All blocked so no need to do that. Will wait for the second look before tagging. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that they are all already tagged, but I would have preferred a thorough review / second CU opinion beforehand. In any case, many of the previously-blocked accounts, e.g. User talk:Joemel Arquillo, will need to have their talk pages cleaned up, and all confirmed accounts will need to have talk revoked to prevent recreation of the fake articles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've double checked the results and I was able to confirm nearly all of the results, apart from a couple of instances where the checkuser data is now too old. The only additional account I could find was, which I've blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil, I think we can close this now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ (Titles, places):
 * ✅, but don't quite fit the pattern:
 * Some of these accounts have had their edits suppressed, so it would be helpful for an oversighter to review this. Also, I wouldn't mind having another CU look this over, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted per DoRD's comment. All blocked so no need to do that. Will wait for the second look before tagging. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that they are all already tagged, but I would have preferred a thorough review / second CU opinion beforehand. In any case, many of the previously-blocked accounts, e.g. User talk:Joemel Arquillo, will need to have their talk pages cleaned up, and all confirmed accounts will need to have talk revoked to prevent recreation of the fake articles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've double checked the results and I was able to confirm nearly all of the results, apart from a couple of instances where the checkuser data is now too old. The only additional account I could find was, which I've blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil, I think we can close this now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ (Titles, places):
 * ✅, but don't quite fit the pattern:
 * Some of these accounts have had their edits suppressed, so it would be helpful for an oversighter to review this. Also, I wouldn't mind having another CU look this over, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted per DoRD's comment. All blocked so no need to do that. Will wait for the second look before tagging. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that they are all already tagged, but I would have preferred a thorough review / second CU opinion beforehand. In any case, many of the previously-blocked accounts, e.g. User talk:Joemel Arquillo, will need to have their talk pages cleaned up, and all confirmed accounts will need to have talk revoked to prevent recreation of the fake articles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've double checked the results and I was able to confirm nearly all of the results, apart from a couple of instances where the checkuser data is now too old. The only additional account I could find was, which I've blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil, I think we can close this now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, but don't quite fit the pattern:
 * Some of these accounts have had their edits suppressed, so it would be helpful for an oversighter to review this. Also, I wouldn't mind having another CU look this over, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted per DoRD's comment. All blocked so no need to do that. Will wait for the second look before tagging. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that they are all already tagged, but I would have preferred a thorough review / second CU opinion beforehand. In any case, many of the previously-blocked accounts, e.g. User talk:Joemel Arquillo, will need to have their talk pages cleaned up, and all confirmed accounts will need to have talk revoked to prevent recreation of the fake articles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've double checked the results and I was able to confirm nearly all of the results, apart from a couple of instances where the checkuser data is now too old. The only additional account I could find was, which I've blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil, I think we can close this now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, but don't quite fit the pattern:
 * Some of these accounts have had their edits suppressed, so it would be helpful for an oversighter to review this. Also, I wouldn't mind having another CU look this over, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted per DoRD's comment. All blocked so no need to do that. Will wait for the second look before tagging. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that they are all already tagged, but I would have preferred a thorough review / second CU opinion beforehand. In any case, many of the previously-blocked accounts, e.g. User talk:Joemel Arquillo, will need to have their talk pages cleaned up, and all confirmed accounts will need to have talk revoked to prevent recreation of the fake articles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've double checked the results and I was able to confirm nearly all of the results, apart from a couple of instances where the checkuser data is now too old. The only additional account I could find was, which I've blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil, I think we can close this now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of these accounts have had their edits suppressed, so it would be helpful for an oversighter to review this. Also, I wouldn't mind having another CU look this over, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted per DoRD's comment. All blocked so no need to do that. Will wait for the second look before tagging. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that they are all already tagged, but I would have preferred a thorough review / second CU opinion beforehand. In any case, many of the previously-blocked accounts, e.g. User talk:Joemel Arquillo, will need to have their talk pages cleaned up, and all confirmed accounts will need to have talk revoked to prevent recreation of the fake articles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've double checked the results and I was able to confirm nearly all of the results, apart from a couple of instances where the checkuser data is now too old. The only additional account I could find was, which I've blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil, I think we can close this now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

03 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Although Ivan P Clarin on his talkpage claims to be unrelated to the permanently blocked User:Ivan Clarin (see: sockpuppet archive) I don not believe a word of that. With his userpage linked to the userpage of Ivan Clarin and the story there about being blocked, the connection and block evading is loud and clear.

The fact the the confirmed sockpuppeteer Clarin also wrote the userpage of User:Jeanelle Intila (already indef blocked) and redirected User:Jeanelle J Intila, wiping out the sockpuppet history with that. Something Intila did with the already blocked User:Jeanelle Mae intila. . Inila also wrote a part of the userpage of Madylene Salon (

Ivan Clarin also wrote the userpage of User:Grazielle Prondo.

Knowing that mr. Clarin already created many sockpuppets, these classmates are highly suspicious and more sockpuppets are likely. The Banner talk 10:04, 3 October 2014 (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 old stuff is likely stale but we can at least check the new accounts against each other. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are :

All blocked and tagged. PhilKnight (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

IP added unblock request for both sockpuppets. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about screwing up the request. I used Twinkle, and there should be a way to update the previous sockpuppet report. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:14, 16 October 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

 * . For future reference, use the sockpuppet ARV option in twinkle to get the functionality you're describing, instead of the sockpuppeteer option you used here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)