Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monterrosa/Archive

10 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Editing same articles, edit warring at same articles: Rachael MacFarlane, Jeremy Jahns, Jimmy Fallon, among others. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Without question a sock. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC) ''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I blocked Monterrosa for one week based on report at WP:AN3. I've blocked the IP for the same period of time based on WP:DUCK and prior block evasion (Monterrosa's last block a couple of days ago). Declining CU as generally CUs are not done for IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

12 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Duck test: Same user comment at Jimmy Fallon article, same edit made, same type of IP as other sock used when blocked, same M.O. with editing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I haven't really looked into the edits Monterrosa has made on Jimmy Fallon, but just needs to stop whether this sock is him/her or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC) ''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've increased Monterrosa's block from one to three weeks and warned him that if he does this again, the next block will be indefinite. I've blocked the IP for 48 hours. The intersection between Monterrosa and the IP is not only on the Fallon page, but the other edits by the IP are to pages Monterrosa has edited and they are generally similar to edits Monterrosa makes (material related to occupations of the subjects and the way they are wikilinked).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

13 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Duck test: Same M.O., using mobile IP to block evade, reverting same articles. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:27, 13 January 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

 * Blocked for 60 hours. Tiptoety  talk 07:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

13 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Duck test: Same M.O., same reverting of same articles, same-ol-same-ol from this mobile IP block evader -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:29, 13 January 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

 * Same as above. Tiptoety  talk 07:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

13 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Block evading IP that keeps changing IPs. Same articles, same MO, same everything. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:52, 13 January 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

 * IP blocked for 60 hours. Named account indef blocked. Tiptoety  talk 07:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

23 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same reversions, same articles. Block evasion. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:16, 23 January 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
I'm satisfied that the IP is being used by the master, but because this is happening repeatedly, I've queried a CU to see if there's a way to do this more efficiently than picking them off one by one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * has range-blocked 2605:e000:96c0:af00::/64.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

24 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same article, same reversions, same M.O. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:20, 24 January 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
This is too obvious to warrant a CU. I've indeffed and tagged the puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

26 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same reverts, same articles, same M.O. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:32, 26 January 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

 * Blocked and targets semi'd for a week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

27 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same articles, reversions back to what Monterrosa's sockpuppet edited, same M.O. Definitely a Duck. Look here: at the user comparison report of all the blocked socks of Monterrosa beside this new account. It tells the story. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:40, 27 January 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

 * I've blocked and tagged the account as a duck given the editing area and what they're saving. I don't think that there a need for CheckUser at this time, mainly because I don't think it'll turn up much of use (lacking sleepers in the past). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

28 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same articles, same edits, same use of mobile phone to edit, same M.O. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 06:46, 28 January 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

 * ✅ along with the rest of the named accounts in the archive. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Confirmed sock tagged and blocked indef, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

04 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same articles, same reversions, same M.O. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 06:02, 4 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

 * IP blocked one week for block evasion, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

08 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This is a duck. Edit warring the same thing that Monterrosa edit warred here. Edit warring an article/template created by Monterrosa here. Loads of other overlapped articles, too. Quack! Nymf (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I have a feeling this could be another sock, especially after seeing the edits Mr. Planck made to Neil Patrick Harris. If so, I will say it is less obvious than Monterrosa socks from the past. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Very obvious WP:DUCK, edits are centralized on the same articles, Neil Patrick Harris, Seth MacFarlane, Trey Parker and they keep making the exact same disruptive changes in the infobox that the sockmaster was blocked for.  STATic  message me!  04:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching this one as well. It appears he is now creating sleepers. I think it's less obvious this time, but then again, there are certain tells that connect him with Monterrosa. Strong feeling this is a Monterrosa sock. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 04:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So will there be a block on the account? They are still edit warring on the same pages the sockmaster did. The quacking is very loud and clear.  STATic  message me!  05:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that the loud quacking would have resulted in a block on its own merit already, and I endorse such a block. I was doing the followup, so I thought. If the case is clear socking admins should block as policy permits. CU in this case was to verify relationship with the sockmaster and/or sleepers, and that's a separate issue from this account's disruption in general. Keegan (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I don't think it's as obvious as some of the IPs. There are a few edits that look like Monterrosa, but I wouldn't say there are "loads" of others. The user has made only 11 edits. I'm endorsing CU both to confirm the relationship and to check for sleepers.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by CheckUser for the relationship and sleepers. DUCK fits Mr. Planck. Keegan (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Should the user be blocked then? --Rschen7754 05:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Keegan (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Now done. --Rschen7754 05:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

13 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Duck, duck, quack. Definitely Monterrosa: same m.o., same articles, same type of edits, same mobile edits. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 04:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, gee. Next time I will be sure to not be so sure and word things differently while jumping through the appropriate hoops so you can do your job as you should. Seriously, don't be such a dick, upside down named Admin. Damn. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 04:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I personally haven't noticed that many similarities just yet, but in any case Monterrosa needs to accept that blocks simply cannot be evaded so easily. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . If it is "definitely Monterrosa" then you don't need a checkuser. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 04:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Same articles, similar edits enough for a duck block. Blocked and tagged, closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

16 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same edits, same M.O., same use of mobile phone to edit, same articles, same, same, same. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 08:09, 16 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

 * - Would a CU please have a look at adding another rangeblock and confirm the bunch in the last few weeks. I've blocked the suspected sock as a duck for now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅:
 * A range block won't be possible at this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Both confirmed socks tagged and blocked indef, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A range block won't be possible at this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Both confirmed socks tagged and blocked indef, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

24 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same articles, same edits, same reverts, same M.O. as the sock puppeteer and the other socks. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
It would not surprise me in the least if this is Monterrosa again. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I indeffed and tagged Malum Dude based on duck: similar edits to same pages as Monterrosa and his socks. I blocked the IP for one week. Same thing but also similar kind of IP (corporate static belonging to AT&T) as others in the archives.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

07 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same articles, same MO, same type of reverts, non-use of edit summaries, same everything as every other time including mobile edits. Also, look at the named account: who puts up a semi-retired notice on their talk page after editing for less than a month? My guess is he thought he was going to be found out again and decided to stop editing with this account, making it a sleeper for later use after another IP of his was blocked. In my estimation, this seems like a good reason to conduct a CU for the named account. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 06:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I haven't looked very far yet, and the only activity I've seen is the Mike Judge page where IP insists on not needing citations. In any case, Monterrosa just needs to accept (assuming this hasn't happened already) that block evasion gets you nowhere on this site. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - Heavy overlap in articles edited, such as and . King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Named user is ✅. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked, IPs blocked 1 week. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

18 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Just reverted back all the content changes I reverted per WP:DENY that were made by the recently blocked IP and last named sock account for this user. Serial sock - can't a range block be done here? He's using at least one new sock a week (sometimes more). -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:01, 18 March 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

 * IP blocked for three days. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

26 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Quack. Check the name: Luismiguelmonterrosamacea. Requesting a checkuser and a sleeper check. Also requesting underlying IP to be blocked for 2+ weeks, and possibly a rangeblock if needed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems very possible it's him, but without any editing, I don't see how a user name can be the only duck evidence. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 05:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Something like that has been done for another sockmaster, User:IPhonehurricane95, after a recent sock-creating spree with similar names. So yes, if the user has abused Wikipedia enough, and the name is too suspicious, then the account could be checked, particularly if no one else has used that naming pattern recently. As a matter of fact, I haven't found another user named similar to this one within this month, and given that his IP was only blocked for 3 days (until March 21), it's probably him. In this case, it would be a sleeper account. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:56, 26 March 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

 * - With no edits, and only the username to go on, no checks will be run. Closing with no action taken. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As more of an explanation,, the IPh95 case was completely different. In that case, there are multiple socks with similar account names. Here, the socks have completely different names than this account, so with no edits, there is absolutely no basis for running a check. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

27 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Has reverted everything I reverted from the previous Monterrosa sock. Same articles, reverting, etc. Duck-Duck, Quack. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most likely a sock, based on editing behavior. Requesting a checkuser and a sleeper check for any more socks. A longer block on the IP (or IP Range) is probably going to be needed, based on his history of socking. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 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

 * IP blocked for 3 months. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

05 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same reverting, same type of edits, same articles. Duck. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * How much longer will this keep up? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

16 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same ol' same ol'. Reverted back what Monterrosa put in as one of the last socks he used. Mobile edit. Same quacking. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 13:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Will someone please block this clown? He's mocking us by revert-warring. And, it might not be a bad idea to look for sleepers since a C/U has been completed. He's a long-term abuser now with all of the socks he has to his credit and I don't see him stopping unless something is done beyond the basic blocking. Because I'm not privy to what you guys do in situations such as this, I can't say "Please do [X]", but I think you get what I'm asking for. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:10, 17 April 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

 * I'm not overly familiar with this sockmaster, however, in comparison to a few recently blocked socks, it appears to be .--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  18:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sock indef'd and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

19 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same reverting, same type of IP, same articles, quacking loudly in same duck voice. 14 articles in common, many of them obscure which seems to make the commonality less coincidental. Similar edits, including numerous mobile edits (a Monterrosa calling card). This user is a long term abuser. Wouldn't it be a good idea to look for sleeper accounts, too? He seems to surface with a new IP or account a couple of times a week now. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Eh, from the behavior, it's probably him. Requesting sleeper check. His block circumvention could be a problem though. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After this, Monterrosa should probably be banned from Wikipedia if it keeps up. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Risker if range block will not be done, when will you or block the confirmed socks? Block log currently isn't displaying anything for them, as users are tagged but not blocked. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - To check the account and for sleepers. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Checkuser Comments: No comment on the IP.  *  and  are ✅.   is . The IP ranges involved are quite dynamic, and there are other non-involved users popping up on them as well, so range block is not reasonable.  Risker (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do about Arnida22. The editor has made some fairly innocuous edits to the Arielle Vandenberg article, and the edits don't seem to be quite in the same pattern as other edits from this sockmaster, but it does fit within the general "pop culture" focus of the sockmaster. With a "possible" technical match, I don't know that there's a solid enough reason to block that editor. --  At am a  頭 16:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Confirmed socks blocked and tagged. I'm not convinced on Arnida22 so no action against them. Closing, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

26 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same type of edits, 11 articles in common, some obscure. Mobile edits which are a calling card of Monterrosa and Monterrosa socks. Quacking, but requesting a checkuser to be certain and because this "editor" has been creating sleepers. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 05:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I'm not too sure about this one. The Matt Stone and Trey Parker edits seemed to be in good faith, same with Tom Hiddleston. What am I not seeing that indicates possible socking? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Monterrosa socks have made a number of good faith edits. While socking.  While being Monterrosa.  That doesn't disqualify the socking and block evasion.  Like I noted in my original comments above, there are 11 articles in common with Monterrosa - some pretty obscure.  While the nature of the edits may not be disruptive, socking is still the problem.  Also note that every WP:DENY reversion of his edits I made included an edit summary stating Admiral Kahn is a likely sock of Monterrosa.  If Kahn isn't Monterrosa, why didn't he protest being named as a sock?  This is another trait of Monterrosa - no denial, just a few more edits (or a complete stop to editing as the named sock).  Also, the article subjects are all in line with the type of articles he is attracted to. But one of the biggest clues aside from articles and behavior?  The name he chose: a science fiction character (Admiral Kahn as in Star Trek) like his last sock (Commander Greedo as in Star Wars) -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  13:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see..... I was just rather used to seeing Monterrosa edit war/disruptively edit. Now sounds more likely. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * He's getting more clever, but he's still obvious. To me, at least. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  16:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, now Admiral Kahn has responded to your reversions with the edit summary "False // STOP your abusive reversions". For now, just let this stand until after CheckUser is performed. If CheckUser confirms a sock, then revert. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Would such a new user say something like that? Or would they try to understand why their edits are being reverted and attempt polite discussion? Would such a new user immediately have so many articles in common with Monterrosa? Unlikely. I still feel strongly that it's Monterrosa. I've place a suspect sock tag on his user page. Even if Kahn just comes up as a duck, I will be reverting per DENY. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 17:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A new user would in fact more likely try to discuss issues, though my point on not (yet) reverting again was to keep from edit warring and possible WP:3RR. Good thinking with the tag. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of edit warring with him. His edits/reverts and other behaviors are already putting him into the DUCK category.  The CU will take it a step further if the outcome is what I expect it will be. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  18:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ as well as . Both are now blocked. Tiptoety  talk 14:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ALready blocked and tagged, closing;archiving. Courcelles 17:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

18 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same article and same revert as Monterrosa sock, User:Admiral Kahn. Duck. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

He's quite persistent, I'll give him that. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. If only he had just cooled down and waited until his block was up rather then socking. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

05 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same articles, same type of edits, non-use of edit summaries, edit warring. Duck. Also: look at the following Editor Interaction/Edit Compare report here -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  00:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: "Fluffy Kriby" has admitted to being the sock of Monterrosa here . In fact, I ask that whatever administrator and CU takes care of this investigation look at his talk page and read the section "Why not just stop?" here .  Also ask that when the CU takes place that a check for sleepers is done.  He's a serial sock and threatens to continue to sock.  I'm certain he has sleepers in the way of accounts and IPs.  He has in the past.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read the entire discussion on his talk page. I don't know whether or not he was sincere (it's impossible to know for sure, actually), but he needs to know that sockpuppeteering for any reason whatsoever is not acceptable here on Wikipedia. Even if he will make only positive contributions from now on (which again is doubtful), he needs to wait awhile and take up the WP:UTRS offer. Continuing to sockpuppet to get what he wants is in itself disruptive editing, both of which are forbidden on Wikipedia. He needs to learn his lesson by now, that he cannot abuse his editing privileges just to have his own way or make a statement. I'm requesting a Checkuser to help out, as this has been going on for some time now, and Checkuser involvement will definitely speed things up. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
This one took some thought, but I definitely get where you're coming from. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He's getting better at being stealthy, but still gives the same kind of clues as to who he is. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Sleeper check. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ is a sock of Monterrosa. No sleepers uncovered for now. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 16:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

02 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same articles edited as Monterrosa and Monterrosa socks, same types of edits, same type of warnings received - duck. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Have just added IP User:65.92.125.40 because of this revert. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 19:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Added IP User:166.137.8.90 because of this revert:. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 06:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding yet another IP User:166.137.8.112 because of this revert: and this revert. The comment "stop vandalizing" is a calling card of Monterrosa and Monterrosa socks. Duck. Strongly suggest a IP rangeblock. '''ALSO, if you look again at Spartacus' contributions list and the User Compare Report here:, it shows numerous articles in common with these IPs and with the named accounts (including Monterrosa). Even if C/U doesn't find a link, the DUCK test most certainly does. Please: DQ, DoRD, whomever - block these accounts. Every indication they are the same person and the banned user Monterrosa exists in behavior and article commonality.'''

Is there a specific reason why this case is not being taken care of? It was filed 11 days ago, both Editor Interaction Utility and User Compare report show articles and editing behavior in common. Can't understand why nothing has been done so far (unless I've left something out?) -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 23:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delta Quad, all one needs to do is look at this sock's history, look at the editor interaction utility, look at the user comparison utility, and you should see what I do (along with others who are familiar with this banned user's MO). -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Have just added User:Count Sir Bites. Same type of edits, same articles. See the following editor interaction reports for more evidence: ; ;  Also, please see the User Compare Report here.

Having all of these articles in common if they weren't the same editor would be an extreme coincidence, highly unlikely, in fact. Please - take care of this. The longer this goes on, the farther the sockmaster (Monterrosa) is allowed to go, the more article edits allowed to stand (without reversion per WP:DENY), and the more satisfaction he receives and will likely be back socking over and over again. As another editor (LightandDark2000) has pointed out above, there's is no seemingly good reason to allow this to continue without checkuser and appropriate blocks. A check for sleepers is also likely a wise move. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 06:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Have just added another IP (User:166.137.8.95) because of this edit. Seems to me that only another sock IP of Monterrosa would revert this back. Same MO: no edit summary, reverting back in what Monterrosa socks have edited. Also, articles this IP has edited match articles edited by Monterrosa socks. Duck. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
How long will this keep up for? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As long as Monterrosa has access to the internet and refuses to stay away from Wikipedia, I imagine. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 19:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Winkelvi. A look at the edit history and the edit comparisons would show a clear pattern of vandalism, if not sockpuppeting. I request that a Checkuser help out and take administrative action before this sockmaster (or whoever is behind this, if it is someone else) gets too far. I could provide links directly to the edits comparisons, but I really don't think that that is necessary at this time. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - While you have provided how you believe the socks are connected, I have taken a brief look and don't see what you see. In our instructions we ask for people to post diffs to back up their comments. If you could do so, it will be processed faster, as we have a lot of open cases. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  01:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Count Sir Bites is ✅, but Spartacus905 appears to be ❌. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Count Sir Bites blocked, no action on IPs as they're either stale or very dynamic. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

26 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Continues to re-revert at same article where Monterrosa socks are documented performing same edits. Duck. Please see current SPI already open. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 23:46, 26 August 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

 * Article semi'd. No point blocking as it's very dynamic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

30 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Reverting at articles where Monterrosa socks had been reverted per WP:DENY. Same MO, same articles, same behavior. See Editor Interaction Utility report here. Duck. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Have added User:Retrospectiveman because of this edit:. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

166.137.8.76 Undoing reversion made per WP:DENY re: sock of banned user Monterrosa. IP is in range of other Monterrosa IP socks, same MO as other Monterrosa socks. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:03, 30 August 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

 * All blocked. Account tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

07 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same articles as Monterrosa and Monterrosa socks, same type of edits, same IP range as Monterrosa IP socks. Duck. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Duck. IP sock has switched to another IP sock and is reverting WP:DENY reversions.  Same articles, same IP range, same MO: Monterrosa socks are known for switching IPs and reverting back when a Monterrosa SPI is opened. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  03:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I don't think he's giving up anytime soon :/  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 02:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Never expected him to. Even though he's promised on more than one occasion that he would not return.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Umm... You do realize that you can file a report on multiple accounts at once? It's better that it's done this way. Anyhow, I've requested Checkuser attention; unfortunately, I personally don't have to time to look over this. Hopefully someone will take care of this soon. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . CU not done for IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * IPs are stale now. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

11 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Quacking loudly. Same articles, same reverts, same type of edits as banned user Monterrosa and Monterrosa socks. Request looking for sleeper IPs and accounts if deeded appropriate. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about asking for CU. That was completely my error/brain fart and I do now remember that CUs aren't done on IPs. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * UPDATE:IP User reverted here, an edit I reverted from a Monterrosa sock back in August. With the dozens of edits following the august reversion, why would a brand-new IP editor revert something done so long ago and not related to any current/recent edits? Suspicious and exactly what other Monterrosa socks have done previously.  Both articles edited by this IP are articles edited by Monterossa socks see Amy Schumer Monterrosa sock edit here:  and subsequent Monterrosa sock tagging here: [User:Zsigmondy. If you need more evidence, please let me know.  Because Monterrosa's socks are plentiful and the histories of all of them very involved, digging through all of it is difficult.  But if you want more, I'm willing to wade through it all to get more evidence. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding User:2605:E000:87C2:3200:6577:8132:EBBA:DA1B per this reversion and this reversion . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  03:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also adding User:166.170.14.24 based on this reversion: . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding User:76.169.112.249 based on this edit -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  03:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I know you have procedures you have to follow, Bbb23, but I'm tired -- too tired to do more than I've already done regarding this sock tonight. It is Monterrosa. Everything he's done so far is right down to the last mark his typical M.O. The baiting, the IP hopping, the same articles, same type of edits, etc. Everything screams it's him. Maybe tomorrow I'll have time and energy to do more investigation. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 05:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding User:Atomic Meltdown because of this reversion: . Edit reverts a WP:DENY reversion I completed on September 6, 2014 - this is a hallmark of Monterrosa sock behavior: going back days, weeks, months to undo reversions I have made of Monterrosa socks per DENY.  Because there is now a new named/registered account suspected of being a Monterrosa sock, I am re-requesting a checkuser. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  04:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, will be adding more diffs ASAP to see this concluded. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, as promised, below are diffs for the results of editor interaction analyzer for confirmed Monterrosa socks and the new suspected Monterrosa socks listed above. Also, please consider that for nearly every Monterrosa sock there has been little to no communication returned or initiated by those socks on talk pages (see Atomic Meltdown's talk page as evidence of this classic Monterrosa behavior User talk:Atomic Meltdown. In addition, further classic Monterrosa behavior exhibited by these suspected socks is a chronic lack of edit summaries (for example: ).  For the evidence below, Monterrosa (sockmaster), Atomic Meltdown (suspected new sock), and the IPs (suspected new socks) are compared together along with old, confirmed socks:

All of the above "old" socks of Monterrosa here in comparison with the Monterrosa account as well as the new, suspected Monterrosa socks in this report have article connections as seen in the Editor Interaction report links provided. I hope this is sufficient evidence-wise to prove the IPs and the named account are Monterrosa socks. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 04:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Atomic Meltdown (new sock):
 * Mr. Planck (old sock):
 * Penguin Dude 3000 (old sock):
 * Admiral Kahn(old sock):
 * Fluffy Kriby (old sock):
 * Count Sir Bites(old sock):
 * '''2605:E000:87C2:3200:49BC:3239:67FE:4F2 (new sock):
 * '''2605:E000:87C2:3200:6577:8132:EBBA:DA1B (new sock):
 * '''76.169.112.249 (new sock):

Fuck it, then, Bbb23. Just let Monterrosa operate as numerous socks because I don't know a more concentrated, succinct and obvious way to connect the dots for you. Hell, why not let all socks just roam unfettered throughout Wikipedia? In fact, why even have SPI at all? Perhaps this is all part of the editor retention plan (yes, all that was sarcasm). From now on, I am adopting the WP:IDGAS attitude when it comes to this particular sockmaster, because obviously, the WP:IDGAS attitude is status quote at SPI, too. Have fun User:Monterrosa, you won and are now free to edit as whatever identity you choose (no, none of that was not sarcasm). -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 23:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I'm not a sock, i'm just making simple edits. You don't have to accuse me just because my edits are similar to that person.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. You've been told before that we don't do CUs for IPs. Additionally, every time you create a new report, you need to provide diffs of the puppet and another confirmed puppet or the master for comparison purposes. I don't dig them out for you. I realize that you're intimately familiar with this master, but that doesn't mean the person looking at it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what I need. You need to tie the IPs to confirmed puppets or the master in a concrete way with diffs. You've included only one diff for a confirmed puppet, but other than saying it's the same article, you haven't given me anything to connect the dots. I'm afraid that's your burden without which I can't act.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem,, I'm tired, too. :-) I can wait until you have more energy. However, do let me know if you don't want to do it at all. Thanks, and get some rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I didn't ask for editor analyzer reports but diffs. I'm closing this with no action based on lack of evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)