Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lycoperdon/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both users edit only in areas pertaining to Middle Eastern conflicts, with the exception of one edit (which I'll get to later). Both edit with a pro-government or pro-Russian viewpoint with varying degrees of subtlety: see IP1 2 4 and Lyco 1 2 3, with similar styles in edit summaries, i.e. Lyco  and IP. The IP traces via WHOIS to Lithuania, which supports the hypothesis of a pro-Russian figure using both accounts to edit in the same sphere, at times on the same article. A look through their respective contributions reflects an astonishing similarity in their edit style. Dschslava Δx  parlez moi  04:06, 27 June 2016 (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
I've declined the CU request as we rarely publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I reviewed edits, but found nothing conclusive. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both the master (42 edits since: 2015-09-18) and the sock (41 edits since: 2016-02-10) are a throwaway accounts created for the purpose of edit warring except that the evidence of intention was lacking in the original investigation archived at Sockpuppet investigations/Lycoperdon/Archive. In this case, however, the deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia finally caught up with the sockmaster in a direct way.


 * Evidence
 * Article Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II
 * 1) Helpfulperson1 enters deliberate lie by replacing "invaded" with "reclaimed".
 * 2) 1st revert : Helpfulperson1 adds one more lie about the Nazi-Soviet Pact by replacing "the West" with "Poland".
 * 3) 2nd revert : Helpfulperson1 reinstates both of his lies.
 * 4) 3rd revert : the last one, as user Helpfulperson1.
 * 5) Lycoperdon enters the scene : Lycoperdon reverts back to Helpfulperson1 disruptive edit.
 * 6) Further disruption by Lycoperdon : removes "Stalin's orders" in an attempt to whitewash USSR.
 * Please note, the original purpose of creating the sockpuppet was not the above article but the disruption throughout other articles about the Soviet invasions including the War in Afghanistan (2015–present) as well as War in Abkhazia (1992–93) and the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present).


 * Here is an example of Lycoperdon's disruption at War in Afghanistan – User:Diannaa removes copyright content stolen by Lycoperdon from Reuters. And, here is the best joke – Lycoperdon reverts his own stupid edit as Helpfulperson1 (!) to create the illusion that neither have anything to do with each other ... and carry on like there's no tomorrow.
 * Meanwhile, Helpfulperson1 began trolling me, entering lies and reinstating them back in articles of no prior interest to either him or the master, including disruption at Flight of Poles from the USSR as well as disruption at Massacre of Lwów professors and disruption at Polish government-in-exile.  Poeticbent  talk 15:13, 6 July 2016 (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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both the master and its socks tried to remove DPRK from the Yemeni Civil War articles. Not only that, they edit articles related to Yemen and the Middle East. 1st edvidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=768057325 2nd edvidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015–present)&diff=prev&oldid=695979230 3rd edvidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen&diff=prev&oldid=817574184 RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE #1: In response to Karl's defense, the user is also invloved in edit wars with other users. Also, notice how he uses the term "DPRK" when ever he removes North Korea in the Yemen articles. This is same thing what Lycoperdon did. I suspect that this guy is similar to Lycoperdon. The sources about North Korea that Karl removed has some good info and detail. Also, he edits articles that relates to Russia and the Middle East. I revert this to add more sources about the situation in Yemen and how the Houthis are armed by North Korea. I had noticed that both Lycoperdon and Karl violated the 3 revert rules and both are engaged in edit wars. I noticed that some of his edits are from copyrighted works.

UPDATE #2: Here is another one of his edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Armed_Forces_casualties_in_Syria&diff=810522194&oldid=809960234 According to ExoGraf and I'm quoting him, At least because this is the figure of those confirmed by name. Other sources put the overall figure much higher. Allegedly is a word that is to be avoided per WP policy. Here is another one of his edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Iraqi_Civil_War_infobox&diff=next&oldid=816326590), he thinks that Russia is a combatant but Russia is doesn't have soldiers in Iraq. Just because he is unbiased doesn't mean he not going to be investigated. In fact, he was involved in edits wars with EkoGraf, Panam2014 (on the Battle of Saana) and Snooganssnoogans (on the WikiLeaks article). What he is doing right now is making pro-Russian, pro-Iranian or pro-North Korean viewpoints similar to Lycoperdon. Interestingly, both Lycoperdon and Karl seem to be "offended" by any sources that is "too biased". Also this part (I honestly feel like there should be some limitations to being able to nominate people to sockpuppet investigations) he made, this is for the admins to decide not the users themselves. Getting back on the conflict, both made edits to WWII articles. Both accounts are purposed to make edit wars. As for Nochyyy, he deletes sources about Russia and North Korea's involvement in Yemen's civil war. I reported this accounts as I'm suspicious about their edits.

UPDATE #3 Most users didn't need to inform the accused, I've seen investigations and the accused are not informed. Also, you almost get involved in an edit war (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen&action=history). I added another source about North Korea and the Yemeni War from VICE. I've ask the admins to determine if my sources are right or not. Although, Karl claims he didn't know Lycoperdon, he still acts like Lycoperdon mostly because of the constant edit wars and arguing with everyone.

UPDATE #4: I asked ExoGraf for good reason because these edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Armed_Forces_casualties_in_Syria&offset=&limit=500&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Armed_Forces_casualties_in_Syria&diff=810522194&oldid=809960234) that Karl had a dispute (a little to medium dispute) with Eko. Karl said that was involved once in an edit war, he was acutally involved in edit wars four times (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Net_neutrality&offset=&limit=500&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sana%27a_(2017)&offset=&limit=500&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baizuo&action=history) since he first edited. His edits are not just related to war but other stuff such as politics. I know this because of his edit history, there are four cases of edit wars (this means that that user has a history of himself getting involved in edit wars). He had an edit war with Ozfer (for net neutrality), Snooganssnoogans (for WikiLeaks), Panam2014 (for the Battle of Sana'a) and Grayfell (for Baizuo).

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


 * Response to the original accusations


 * 1) I've got no idea who the other guy is or that the mention of DPRK was removed from the article before. I did, however, explain my position as to why I removed mention of DPRK on the talk page (spoiler: there's a single source for DPRK being involed - a single link in a huffington post article about north korea) and invited other people to discuss the issue there via the edit summary when i removed the mention of dprk from the page. Unfortunately the submitter either didn't read my edit summary, or thought that participating in a discussion on a talk page is a task he wasn't born to, but instead he just reverted my edit without explanation and then went here and submitted me to an investigation.
 * 2) But that's okay, what worries me more is that the submitter uses the fact that i edited other yemeni-related articles as a sign of some bad behaviour and unironically presents it as his sole 'evidence'. I'd like everyone involved to actually see what i did with those articles before anyone makes any conclusion. I've added infoboxes, added templates to numerous articles, updated the article about Saleh and prepared it to be included in the In the news selection on the main page....


 * In short, none of my conributions were in any way biased, skewed or in any other way non-neutral, and the notion that they were any of these things offends me. I honestly feel like there should be some limitations to being able to nominate people to sockpuppet investigations. Otherwise I'd go and nominate everyone who wrote the current version of the gamergate controversy article simply because I disagree with them. Karl.i.biased (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I am pretty sure you should notify people you've accused of bad behaviour. I myself discovered this page by an accident after deciding, on a whim, to look up the contributions page of the guy who reverted by DPRK edit. Something that I don't normally do. Karl.i.biased (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Response to UPDATE #1

This time I'll be short:
 * 1) On DPRK: Common acronym. Had to use it because number of characters in edit summaries is limited.
 * 2) On removed content: See my original reply below. You still haven't joined the discussion on the talk page. There weren't sources, there was a single source, several other problems
 * 3) On my interest in Middle East: Yes, I became interested in Iran after I read the article about yemen a few weeks ago an started researching the topic on my own. Can't say the same for russia, I think less than 1 percent of my edits are about this country.
 * 4) On "I revert this" I didn't get this sentence.
 * 5) On edit war: I was engaged in one lengty edit war on an unrelated article
 * 6) On copyrighted works: That's impossible and a baseless accusation. Please provide evidence, otherwise it's a personal attack.
 * 7) Please, from now on give me a note on my talk page when u make updates on this article.

Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Response to UPDATE #2


 * 1) Please provide the rule you are refering to
 * 2) Not every country listed there as a participant had troops on the ground. I marked Russia as a provider of (logistical support) if I recall correctly)
 * 3) I wasn't. The only time I had participated in an edit war was on an unrelated article about chinese internet slang.
 * 4) None of my points are pro-russian, pro-korean or pro-iranian. If any of the admins reading this, please start with my original reply below. You refused to participate in the talk discussion about either of these things and are now trying to accuse my of being impartial.
 * 5) Interestingly, and I still hasn't checked who the hell Lycoperdon is, I think many editors can argue that poorly sourced facts have ni place on Wikipedia.
 * 6) How many WWII edits did I make as percent of all of my edits? Because I can't even recall from the outset making edits (or reading to that matter) WWII recently.
 * 7) Can an admin comment already? I feel like I am wasting my time arguing with the accuser.

Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I am telling you again, for the second time, that you should inform the accused users about your accusation, as well as any updates to it. I haven't notice your two updates even though they appeared 3 days ago. And I only noticed this page itself by accident. You still hasn't notified the other two users and you should probably do it when you read this. Please inform me about any future updates too. Thank you. Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Response to UPDATE #3


 * 1) That's true. That's not a rule, that's just some basic human decency. Especially after you saw I replied to your original accusations, you still haven't informed me of the updates. Hell, I even asked you (twice!): (Please, from now on give me a note on my talk page when u make updates on this article.)
 * 2) I didn't "almost get in edit war" what does it even mean? Where's your evidence?
 * 3) You still haven't joined the talk discussion I invited everybody to when I originally removed the DPRK quote. Do you understand that Wikipedia is being written through consensus? For those who already forgot where it all started. I removed the mention of DPRK and immediatly started a discussion on this topic on the talk page, to which i invited everyone via the edit summary of the edit in which i removed DPRK. The accuser, instead of going THERE, went HERE and accused me of God know what, and he still refuses to participate in the talk disccusion instead reserving to type here! I have wasted maybe 1 hour on arguing hee with the accuser, he still hasn't replied to any of my objections here. He just makes an accusation (such as, and I quote: "I noticed that some of his edits are from copyrighted works." or "The sources about North Korea that Karl removed has some good info and detail." or "Also, notice how he uses the term "DPRK" when ever he removes North Korea in the Yemen articles.". These accusations necessitate my reply, but he doesn't reply to my responce. He completly ignores it and goes on to make even more ridiculous accusations. I know I should be very respective of other users, and i am not tying to offend anyone, but this makes me feel the user is a troll, who accuses random people of random behaviour, than spends 5 minutes making up troll-able arguments, and then spends time watching the user reply.
 * 4) I've made my case, waiting for the admin to compare IPs or whatever he compares. I refuse to reply to the user above as long as he refuses to engage in a conversation, ignores previous replies and continues to make accusations with no evidence. So long. Karl.i.biased (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The accuser appears to have tried to engaged in a form of (I hope i am using this term correctly) meatpuppetry, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEkoGraf&type=revision&diff=818054235&oldid=816963749 Note that he latter removed it, but it's still visible to the page's owner, therefore the removal might have been a ploy to prevent himself of being accused of meatpuppetry. Karl.i.biased (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

P.P.S. Since the accuser is constantly trying to make it appear as if I edit articles solely pertaining to Iran or the Middle East, interested parties should probably check out this cool analytic instrument I just stumbled upon: https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Karl.i.biased&project=en.wikipedia.org&toplimit=10 (click on "top edited pages") Karl.i.biased (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Response to UPDATE #4


 * You acutely do not understand what an edit war is. Reverting two disruptive edits by a user who removed an image from the article about net neutrality (your first example) because it was, and I quote, "Fake News" is not engaging in an edit war. As per my response in the "Response to UPDATE #3" section I am not feeding you anymore because you refuse to engage in a conversation. Goodbye. Karl.i.biased (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The evidence presented is unconvincing. I'm not going to completely rule out sockpuppetry, but there's certainly not enough here to act on. Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)