Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mttll/Archive

Report date February 9 2009, 05:34 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by User:Olahus


 * Please see.
 * During the edits with the suspected sockpuppets Panlatdelkwa and 78.146.79.227, Mttll was blocked to edit for 48 hours. Therefore, he broked his blocking. In the case of Attlmt, I suppose that he is trying to hide the his list of block logs. Note: added by Tiptoety  talk at the request of User:Olahus.
 * I also strongly supect Mttl to be a sockpuppet of Res Gestæ Divi Augusti/Shuppilulima because I observed a similar nationalistic/disruptive/antiziganist tendency in the postings and comments and also a similar attitude toward the creation of new accounts (sockpuppets). --Olahus (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you've ever filed a CU request before, but it's considered bad practise to start saying "with the sockpuppets Panlatdelka..." without a confirmed checkuser. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I changed the formulation. --Olahus (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * I can't speak for the other accused parties, but I'm certainly not connected. A checkuser will of course no doubt be needed to prove this. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect User:Panlatdelkwa to be a sock of Mttll, as he has been involved in the same two edit-wars that Mttll was with me, namely in List of reservoirs and dams and Middle East. Both are pushing the same POV, and Panlatdelkwa was active while Mttll was blocked. In Talk:Middle East, he also extensively speaks on behalf of the blocked Mttll, as if he could get inside the latter's head. --Athenean (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

78.146.79.227 is in 's range and there's an overlap of topic areas between him and some of the reported users. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Olahus
 * CheckUser requests

in light of support for the allegation from another user, and in particular in light of suggestions that there might be a wider sock farm to consider. Mayalld (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I created this case on behalf of User:Olahus. I have not reviewed any of the evidence; nor do I "certify" this SPI case. I will also be recrusing myself from endorsing this case for CheckUser. Tiptoety  talk 05:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever been on a cruise? It seems so silly to rule them out entirely. Unfortunately I cannot CheckUser endorse cruises, as I've not been on one. All I ask is that you keep an open mind. Some people clearly enjoy them. --Deskana (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

--Deskana (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * for Shuppiluliuma
 * ✅ the following are related:


 * Conclusions
 * All indef blocked. Tiptoety  talk 05:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

06 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Dear Admins. I suspect that the above user has been abusing sock-puppet policy of Wikipedia by intermittently using an anonymous IP, whislt at other times editing with his own name. As can be seen in the revision history of the article in question, "Eurasian Avars", this has occurred multiple times, so is not a case of simply haveing forgotten to log in on an occasion. The timimg of his edits on the talk page (signed in as himself) (5 Feb 2013; 10;08, 10:41) fall exactly on either side of a series of mass-reversion performed by the anonymous IP (10:16, 10:17, 10:20). Moreover, the content of the siad reversion history "Oguric; Bulghar, Bolgar, and variants; also known as Lir-Turkic" are almost word for word replicas of his discussion on the talk page "synonyms are Lir-Turkic and r-Turkic". This has been occurring multiple times and on multiple days from 30 Jan, as can be seen in the revision history of the article. 

Mttll was placed on a 1RR, having just expired (dec 2012) accross all Wikipedia for edit-warring. Perhaps, aware of his previous problems, he has taken to using anonymous IPs to continue his cycle of edit-warring. Moreover, I note he has a history of sock-puppeteering

I further request that the article is semi-protected tfor a while to prevent disruptive editors / trolls who appear to be disregarding cited sources and until the attempted content dispute resolution on the talk page is solved. Thank you Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Slovenski Volk is mistaken: I have been involved in edit-warring many times, but never in sock puppeteering. You will note those users from 2009 are indefinitely banned and I'm still here as I didn't have anything to do with them. I also don't have anything to with the 62.143.40.193 person as any IP-check or whatever will tell. I noted he used one of my arguments from talk page in one of his edit summaries myself; I can only assume he read it and adopted it for himself. Having an influence on others wasn't a crime last I checked. --Mttll (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But, then, Mttll must truly be a messiah if his "influence on others" takes only 30 seconds to take effect on this world's population and physicalize into an 'anonymous' edit-revert, in an otherwise relatively perhipheral and little-heeded article, parroting your very same point Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Or it could be that this IP editor has the same interests as me (just checked his talk page). I don't know or care. All I know and will say is that I don't have anything to do with him or her. I don't have to explain myself further. --Mttll (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not Mttll (1). @Mttll, yes this is right, I adopted your argument. @Slovenski Volk, you are vandalizing the article since many months. It would be nice to protect the article by restoring back to the version 11:43, 21 November 2012‎. Thank you.--62.143.40.193 (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * DOn't buy it. This anonoymous IP must, then, be stalking Mttl given he edits immediately after Mttl. Mttl has a guilty conscious, that's why as soon as the annon IP reverted Mttl immeditaly proclained his "innocence" on the talk page Moreover, they both appear to be shadowing each other in the list of article edited, both causing multiple disruptions, edit -warring and sock-puppet -type activity  Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I like to keep things clear, that's all. Unlike you. Two editors made edits complimenting your POV, 203.52.130.149 and SnowInTheFace (already banned indefinitely for being a sockpuppet). I called the latter a new editor and you responded by saying how you have been an editor for 7 years as though you are him. I asked if you are SnowInTheFace and told you you shouldn't have made edits in the same article without declaring this if you were. You never responded. This is all in the talk page. --Mttll (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're completely confused. I said that I, S.V., have been editing here for 7 years (as you can see from my log). I have no idea who Swollen in the face is/ was and have never had anything to do with him; nor come accross him/ her in previous edits/ tak pages/ articles. Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You are the one who is confused. I had said "A new editor appears" referring to SnowInTheFace and you responded "Wrong, I have been editing for 7 years". And no, I'm not accusing you of sockpupeteering now. I'm just showing how I like to have everything explained, since you argued here that just because I declared I didn't have anything to do with 62.143.40.193 in talk, I must somehow have "guilty conscious". --Mttll (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the IP is related to Mttll, but has blocked the IP before as a sock of someone else. I'll leave this open for him to investigate that possible connection. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP is . Compare this edit on Talk:Balkars by a checkuser-confirmed IP sock of Tirgil34 in the same range to this edit by the IP on the same exact talk page and crossing out things related to Tirgil socks. I believe that the IP may be blocked for 6 months based on Tirgil's long use of it.
 * Okay, that's what I thought. I've blocked the IP for six months as a sock of Tirgil34. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)