Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lordpermaximum/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Lordpermaximum (LPM) was indefinitely blocked in October for various reasons stemming from their crusade against Sherdog.com (their RfC to get Sherdog deprecated). An IP found this RfC after it had been automatically archived to cast a vote (diff), and since the end of November, the same IP range has been making edits to remove Sherdog as a source at Dan Henderson (1, 2, 3). The final IP was given a 1 week block at 17:05 today and the Dan Henderson article was slapped with page protection. The account Maximus Castiglione, which was created in October and hadn't been used, sprang to life today to make the same changes as the IP. Five of Maximus' thirteen edits have been to numbers pages, such as this, which are exactly the same edits LPM made (diff). I think it's a pretty clear cut case. 2 . O . Boxing 22:00, 9 December 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
5 albert square (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

After filing the original SPI report which resulted in Maximus Castiglione being blocked, I received this comment on my talk page from IP7. The IP states Check this IP range dummy nerd. I have all of those IPS. I can do whatever I want, whenever I want. The IPs they are referring to are IP1 to IP4, which were included in my original SPI, hence the move to IP7 and IP8. After a recent dispute which is identical in nature to the one that got Lordpermaximum blocked, IP5 popped up to canvass multiple editors with this comment. I'll notify the most recently active IPs (IP5 and IP6) of this report. 2 . O . Boxing 14:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There was also this comment from the blocked sock account. – 2 . O . Boxing  09:37, 27 January 2021 (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

 * Both 78.190.160.0/20 and 88.241.80.0/22 geolocate very close to each other in Tekirdağ, Turkey and claim to be static. Unfortunately, both have significant other legitimate looking activity.  My hunch is they belong to a school, but that's just a guess.  I'm going to close this with no action taken against the IPs for now, but if this continues to be a problem, please ping me and I'll see if there's something else that makes sense to do. , if you continue to get abusive messages on your talk page, I can semi-protect it for you, just let me know if you want that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Username similarities; account created shortly after the master was blocked; interest in MMA articles (including Tony Ferguson), entering into same disputes about content and sourcing. Looks fairly ducky to me, but there may be other sleeper accounts. Girth Summit  (blether) 12:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (I'll just add that I appreciate the master may be stale, but thought it might be worth requesting CU since we're on the edge of the 3 month window, or if there are any other accounts in the same range. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC))

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


 * I wasn't made aware of this SPI which I think is a requirement. I found this by pure chance because I wanted to report someone else here.
 * There are no diffs for edits or links or something along those lines. Absolutely no evidence.
 * It's stated this account was made shortly after the account in question was blocked. I checked the block log and it looks I made my account 9 days later.
 * The accuser states usernames are similar. This account seems to has an english name. My username is latin - mediterranean name.
 * It's been close to 3.5 months since I made my account. It looks this banned account was banned almost 4 months ago.
 * If we go by this absurdity, why don't you use CU on every account that was created more than a week after a banned person and 3.5 months later stumbles upon an article and rightfully reinstate just one edit of an active editor, still, at the request of someone else (a few weeks after the notice, no less) who happened to invite other editors that contributed to an old rfc also. I'm sure you can find thousands of user accounts like this.
 * In short, there is absolutely no merit for CU check. Only so-called evidence is I made my account 9 days later and 3.5 months later I edited one of the articles a banned user edited 4-5 months ago in a similar way. But I know who I am and I'm not that person. If the CU request which is comical by itself somehow gets approved, I'm 100% certain I will not be found guilty. Then I want this user to be investigated also. False accusations should have results for the accuser. Especially considering now I found out the fact that the accuser took place in the discussions of the same rfc and took sides. I wish I had never helped that person and never gotten involved with this mess in the first place.

By the way, I'm surprised this created so much heat. I simply did what the Wikipedia policies and the rfc in question required from me. I can't understand there's such an unbelievable amount of resistance to the application of the rfc result.Magnus Dominus (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have found out that the accuser Girth Summit had worked with Cassiopeia who was rightfully reported by me at this ani, a day ago before this SPI, as you can see from this diff. This is the exact quote: I have worked closely with CASS in other areas of the project and I have a great regard for her judgement. The project they were referring to is I guess WP:MMA which requires editors to use sherdog.com as the major source on BLPs of mixed martial artists I imagine, which conflicts with the result of the rfc. Suddenly their friend opens this SPI as a retaliation. They're hoping for that 1 in a million chance. It feels like these people will do anything to deny the application of that sherdog.com rfc. I had no idea what I was getting into a few days ago when I reinstated the edit of a legit editor.Magnus Dominus (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I had also prepared a SPI for Magnus Dominus, but was holding off due to an ANI report that the user had made involving me. Since this has been made I'll just add a portion of the one I prepared. Magnus Dominus added a comment to their talk page, similar to Lordpermaximum (diff) and Maximus Castiglione (diff), in which they state people can talk to them there (diff). That's something I haven't encountered too often. Two weeks after registering an account, and in their sixth edit, Magnus Dominus found their way to RSN. Five days later they made this comment at RSN, and just seven minutes after that they made this comment in the sherdog.com RfC (the area of dispute that Lordpermaximum and their socks seem to focus their energy on). This was a long, drawn out discussion with more than seven minutes worth of reading to get through. The relatively short period between those comments at RSN suggest that either Magnus Dominus rushed in without researching the issue, or had prior knowledge of the discussion and didn't need to read the long, drawn out debacle. Eight days later they made this request for closure of the RfC, in an area they have since claimed they have no particular interest in. Lordpermaximum would often make late additions or refactor their comments in talkpage/noticeboard discussions (1, 2, 3), and so does Magnus Dominus, as can be seen in their contributions above.

This could just be a case of a newly registered user who has been dragged into a dispute and has unfortunately raised some suspicions due to prior socks causing disruption, but I agree with GirthSummit, it seems somewhat ducky and worthy of a check. – 2 . O . Boxing  13:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What Squared.Circle.Boxing shared as evidences are pure speculation which were pretty much shared by thousands of accounts if not more, they are not even incidental and completely conflicts with the policies of WP:SOCK but somehow expected. Because Squared.Circle.Boxing was one of the editors who took part in the discussions of the reliability of sherdog.com. According to the rfc, their opinion was supportive of sherdog.com. Just two days ago, they were one of the editors who were accused of the denial of the aplication of the same rfc's consensus at this ani. It feels like they are tryring to retaliate to the ANI and the rfc, just like Girth Summit did. If CU request gets approved it would be against WP:SOCK. But if it gets approved somehow, I'm 100% sure will not be found guilty because I have nothing to do with this account. Then I will want Squared.Circle.Boxing to be investigated also. There's a direct link between these accusers. Their common goal of supporting sherdog.com's reliability depsite the rfc is beyond a doubt, and it's getting even more obvious by each day. I don't know if they're trying to advertise or there's some other benefit in this, but there's something.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just add, since Magnus Dominus has raised it - I have no interest in MMA as a subject, and no involvement in the Wikiproject. My experience of working with Cassiepeia is through WP:CVUA, where we are both trainers. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's funny that there's more basis for the connection between you and Cassiopeia then between me and this account (if there's even any at all) but here I am, trying to defend myself, while you open this SPI for me. Tragicomic.Magnus Dominus (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe in this confirmation. Between supposedly master account and me there's 0 details.


 * 1. It's been almost 4 months. It's too stale to check. I know how these things work.
 * 2. There's no way I'm from the same IP range (not even wide), or from the same geolocation or have the same user-agent. I don't know the other guy but I know I'm not that person. The checkuser can't even share 1 detail. This never happens.
 * 3. In the same time they denied the request for NEDOCHAN who is 100% Kent Bargo, it's painfully obvious and has far more similarities. It should be shocking but I understand why now.
 * 4. Admin friendships have worked in these two cases. I'm also sure of it.
 * 5. I request another checkuser to do CU because I believe Mailer Diablo acted according to the wishes of their admin/clerk friend/s.
 * 6. NEDOCHAN (Kent Bargo), Squared.Circle.Boxing, Cassiopeia and Mailer Diablo: Because of this corruption at the management level and friend favouritism, I predict eventually you'll all be banned indefinetely and your talk page accesses will be revoked. I feel I just experienced a corruption at the high level. As for Girth Summit, with this mindset and corruption, you'll lose in the real life if you're not losing already.Magnus Dominus (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Now, they have everything they need as a proof of this corruption and abuse of power. You'll all face the consequences of blaming an innocent person.Magnus Dominus (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Mailer Diablo, contrib, suddenly becomes active at WP:SPI, "months after", in order to handle my case - along with other cases, not to make it so obvious -, and comes to these conclusions. I just found out that this editor is an admin, so I know someone called Mailer Diablo to handle this case, probably Girth Summit or Cassiopeia.


 * This is a charade. It's an act. Mailer Diablo 100% is lying with the confirmation. I want IP details, user-agent details, geolocation details. They also knew Kent Bargo was NEDOCHAN already. So that's why they didn't do CU on them despite all the evidence. Such a circus.Magnus Dominus (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Apperantly, Mailer Diablo was a former arbitrator, no less. He comes here to deal with this issue after months of inactivity at this section. Imagine that. I'm glad Girth Summit didn't call the Wikipedia founder. Anyways, one honest checkuser will eventually do CU for me and Kent Bargo behind the scenes, and confirm everything I pointed out here. Then all of this will be regarded as evidences.Magnus Dominus (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. - Mailer Diablo 23:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I also happened to handle this SPI (and the other browser tab is not displaying correctly), I'll let someone else decide what sanction, if any, should receive. . - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked Magnus Dominus. Given that their other socks are already NTP/NEM, I've done the same here.  I'll take a look at the 25 January 2021 IPs in a moment. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding
 * For future reference -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For future reference -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)