Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muntuwandi/Archive

Report date June 20 2009, 18:11 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by William M. Connolley

Per I'm blocking Wapondaponda (update: confirmed ) and Shashamula, as socks of Muntuwandi. I don't edit this stuff much so I'm just adding this comment for the record; if anyone cares to put it into the correct format, please do William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

More: in an effort to clean out Ancient Egyptian race controversy I'd appreciate it if all the SPA's there could be CU'd, to clear their name if nothing else.

Requested by — Jake   Wartenberg  18:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Evidence submitted by Hiberniantears

New user who appeared following the indef. block of Wapondaponda, and immediately started editing Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I have no doubt about this actually being a sock of Muntuwandi/Wapondaponda. However, I think we also need a CU report to reveal all underlying IP's or the IP range, in light of another set of comments made here through another sock indicating a desire to just keep on socking. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 Sy  n 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Moved from Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi and. — Jake   Wartenberg  18:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I can't exactly clear them of everything, since I'm only comparing them with each other and Muntuwandi, but there are no matches. Dominic·t 19:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Another request has been made. Recused.  Sy  n 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorsing the second request. Also, Dominic (or any checkuser), could you elaborate on your statement above? Are the accounts operated by one user, but not necessarily Muntuwandi? Icestorm815 •  Talk  21:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't match each other or Muntuwandi. I was just pointing out that for an open-ended request, any given user could be some editor or banned user I may not know to compare their IPs with, since William suggested the check would "clear their name if nothing else."
 * ✅ that Kalimpa and Kobolola are Muntuwandi. I'm blocking some IPs. Dominic·t 23:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Add User:Bolongala to the list. Now blocked too. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Sy  n 21:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date July 25 2009, 01:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by SOPHIAN

User:Muntuwandi has a long history of making socks.  And he uses them on many articles especially recently the E3B article Recently Muntuwandi has complained on the E3B articles talk page that not enough is being said about E3B in near east then for some mysterious reason someone new came and said E3B is common in many near eastern populations This seems rather suspicious to me. The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

76 confirmed socks! This is beyond ridiculous. Normally, I would consider the evidence on this case too weak to run a checkuser, but that kind of socking category sets some kind of record. His recent unblocking was based on a promise to be good, and I think it's reasonable to run a checkuser and confirm that he has, indeed, been good.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * There are many technical elements which suggest this user is ❌ to the subject of the SPI report. -- Versa geek  23:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 5 2009, 01:43 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by SOPHIAN

This user is known for edit warring, disruptive editing and POV pushing theories across Wikipedia as evidenced by numerous complaints at [] The user seems to have decided to create some new accounts in order to Play games by using single purpose accounts to accuse wikipedians with opposing views  of sockpuppetry. However it is on this user's record that this user has been blocked previously for edit warring and sockpuppetry, Typically this user makes sockpuppets in order to revert to his old reversions. However recently there has been an increase in the number of new users http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=history who edit the article about the  genetic history of Europe. The chekuser has proven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Small_Victory/Archive that small victory and me are  not Sockpuppets of the above users that Muntuwandi has accused us of being Sockpuppets of. After the mysterious arrival of Victorius III  a new user came by the name of  Victoriusmaximus there is much similarity between this user and Muntuwandi
 * They both have the same style when creating user and user talk: pages see the similarity between   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARomulus_maximus&diff=300465319&oldid=300432910 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVictoriusmaximus&diff=309670589&oldid=309500716 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AObaserving_the_ypocrites&diff=232580159&oldid=232580013  notice they use similar edit summaries when creating pages and  notice the similarity between the name USER:Victoriusmaximus and   USER:Romulus maximus
 * They all edit the same articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry
 * The new accounts seem to have some knowledge in the edits field that is similar to Muntuwandi.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * * I believe this issue has already been dealt with at Sockpuppet investigations/Small Victory/Archive, and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Larrylooneytunes. Furthermore the nominator, has a history of filing frivolous reports, see Sockpuppet investigations/Pdeitiker/Archive and Requests for adminship/SOPHIAN Wapondaponda (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * It is worth running this to clear the air -- this filing can't be any more frivolous than the other one. This seems symptomatic of an ongoing problem between the two editors and someone needs to address it it in another venue.PelleSmith (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested by The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

. Victorious III has already been checked, and Victoriousmaximus has already been indefinitely blocked as someone else. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 08:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * In the Sockpuppet investigations/Small Victory case, on Aug 21, Nishkid checked Victorius III and other accounts (including SOPHIAN) and returned an unrelated result. That case and subsequent was filed by Muntuwandi. This case, against Muntuwandi and Victorius III et al again was filed by SOPHIAN. (Victorius III was listed in prior iteration of this case, filed under "muntuwandi" and deleted as a duplicate). Looks like a case of retaliation, to me. Nathan  T 04:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Having been involved with M and S, I would say that: M used socks in the past, but promised to stop, and I've seen no good evidence that he hasn't. S is a long-term frivilous editor who may need some sanction William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No action needed here. I will leave notes on both user talk pages asking them to avoid each other wherever possible. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 08:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions