Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldhouse2012/Archive

05 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Advised to raise it here from post at AN/I. Both have been disruptively editing at Talk:History of Vojvodina. requesting Cu as I believe there may be some sleepers out there. Mdann52 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Added two IPs and three users. Oldhouse2012 was ARBMAC warned for removal of Hungarian categories. All have engaged in the same pattern of nationalistic behaviour (with a strong Serbian POV) on articles which relate to Hungarian/Serbian issues, particularly History of Vojvodina and articles on settlements in Vojvodina. The behaviour includes removing categories and creating and adding new ones, same with WikiProject banners, including the recent creation of a new WikiProject purely as a nationalistic stalking horse. Editing patterns are GMT 1400–2100 or thereabouts. An IP from Brazil joined in at one stage, probably WP:MEAT. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 02:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oldhouse2012, and
 * Foodsupply
 * Baća bez gaća, and
 * AnyWay5000, ,
 * 212.200.146.196
 * Account2013, ,
 * 79.175.95.39, ,

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


 * Checkuser should be done at least between User:AnyWay5000 and User:Baća bez gaća so that we can know whether Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary can proceed on a bad-faith premise. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * You will need to provide diffs as described here so that we can determine if CheckUser is warranted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * - Per DoRD. Rschen7754 23:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  10:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The named accounts from this list are all blocked and tagged. I didn't see any currently active IPs that are worthy of attention. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  10:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The named accounts from this list are all blocked and tagged. I didn't see any currently active IPs that are worthy of attention. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  10:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The named accounts from this list are all blocked and tagged. I didn't see any currently active IPs that are worthy of attention. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  10:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The named accounts from this list are all blocked and tagged. I didn't see any currently active IPs that are worthy of attention. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  10:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The named accounts from this list are all blocked and tagged. I didn't see any currently active IPs that are worthy of attention. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * All blocked. ( X! ·  talk )  · @965  · 22:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

06 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Sole contribution is supporting Oldhouse2012's pet project. *facepalm* Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Seeing as we have a focus on Vojvodina-related disruption, can I suggest looking at four IPs that engaged in similar behaviour on Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories and its talkpage? Following their trail may well bear fruit. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker, these four IPs have not edited since 2012. It makes more sense to find a small set of articles that could benefit from semiprotection. I just put semi on Srbobran. The article at Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories is already semied. EdJohnston (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, just wasn't sure of the drill in such situations. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * but what about 79.175.102.73? Same pattern, active today. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Another one User:60.220.158.109 identical edits to User:79.175.95.39 on Novi Kneževac. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Good work, DeltaQuad, you also blocked some accounts that are not mine. :) And you blocked my IP range, which is IP range of most popular internet provider in Serbia. In practice, you blocked access to Wikipedia to half of country. But, that is not my problem. I can always access what I want with help of proxy. There are much more proxies from where they come. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And to say, this show the absurdity of your policy. Wikipedia is supposed to be free, but you block access to other people just to stop me to edit. However, I had no single edit that was vandalism and that damaged Wikipedia in any way. Socking is not worst crime, man. Much more dangerous is what Peacemaker67 or Thehoboclown or Sokac121 are doing. I don't expect that you will understand, anyway. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the first or the last time when these admins block accounts without enough proofs, "just to be sure". The presumption of innocence does not exist on this site 79.117.139.85 (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I should also say that Peacemaker67 now blindly revert all edits of blocked accounts with excuse that edits are made by sock. This is obvious bad faith because he now remove valid categories from articles or propose valid categories for deletion. I had dispute with him on one page only and he never edited most of articles where he now revert blocked accounts. It is clear that Peacemaker67 now acting in bad faith in a sort of personal vendetta. How this fits in your rules? 177.47.116.74 (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He even confessed this bad faith in his edit: His exact words: "I will track down every edit you do and revert them. That's just the kind of guy I am" and "fuck off you pissant little cretin". Yes, that is exact kind of guy he is. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oldhouse2012, thank you. You have clearly shown your contempt for the rules and culture of Wikipedia. Despite saying "I had no single edit that was vandalism", it is obvious that you believe that the truth is just what those with power - or sufficient fanaticism - impose on others. Your kind gives those of us who believe in truth, in some sort of unbiased narrative that might lead eventually to an understanding between peoples, a reason to keep fighting. To quote Winston Churchill, "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..." Brianyoumans (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I see only one thing, Brianyoumans: you just confessed that you are here to push your political views and fight for them. I learned my lesson: having accounts in Wikipedia is bad thing. Who needs accounts anyway? Good luck to you all in tracking all my proxy IP edits in articles about Serbia. There is just too many of them. I am done with circus in this page. 210.53.1.98 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * DeltaQuad, I would open official investigation about this, but you blocked all my accounts, so I will just say this here: can you investigate whose sock is User:Epeos? Account was created recently and immediately jumped in POV disputes about Kosovo, I suspect that his master is either User:ZjarriRrethues either User:Bobrayner. Thank you very much. 187.78.144.69 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi DQ, Favonian and Elokid kindly temporarily semi'd (7 days) a large number of Vojvodina town and village articles, an area he had been editing pretty heavily. If he is back at it, I haven't seen anything on my watchlist for a little bit. I'll have a look at the edits by the suspects. Thanks for all your work on this. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ Sadly I don't see this stopping anytime soon. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Add also. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  01:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've got some checking I need to do, there are more socks. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * DQ, we love you. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * didn't even need a CU for that one... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Similar blocked sock 8182abc on the same range
 * Similar blocked sock 8182abc on the same range
 * Similar blocked sock 8182abc on the same range


 * I might have missed one or two socks that I blocked also, but forgot to transfer here. Sadly Beeblebrox, all the IP Blocks we make aren't going to help. It appears he can get new IPs on demand. He's started to heavily edit via IP now. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  01:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite the checkuser result, IvanKlinko doesn't appear to be the same user when looking at behavior. However, given the username similarity and checkuser results, I have blocked 31abc78. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

15 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

very rarely uses edit summary, same subject area (including WikiProject-warring )and POV, focus on ethnic groups in Vojvodina. Also see this edit on User:IvanOS's talk page, machine translated as "But I am still waiting to get blocked, I hope that it will be an effective blocking, since the addresses change every few days." This is consistent with the IP-hopping of our friend. Blocked on hr.wp for personal attacks or offensive behaviour. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The 2nd and 3rd have same POV, same edits, same subject area (ethnic groups and Vojvodina), abusive on talk pages, 3rd also blocked on sr and hr wp for vandalism etc. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * See also: WP:ANI. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - CU will not connect IPs to accounts except in cases of extreme abuse. Rschen7754 06:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this as no action - the user is IP hopping so there is little chance they are still using any of these IPs. Additionally a new request has been filed asking for a rangeblock, so that takes precedence in terms of dealing with the IPs. SpitfireTally-ho! 09:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

15 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

first one self-evident, the user talk page the first edit was made on is that of the most recent prior IP sock per. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

second one has made identical population-related edits Balkans articles, in particular relating to Vojvodina (see and ). Also abuse on my talk page per.

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


 * Per Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, could a checkuser please assess the amount of collateral damage if we block 24.135.64.0/20 + 24.135.80.0/21? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * just to clarify the way these ranges have been broken up
 * covers 24.135.64.0 - 24.135.79.255, which would include 24.135.79.187 from above, plus 3 other IPs from Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oldhouse2012
 * covers 24.135.80.0 - 24.135.87.255, which would include 24.135.84.89 from above.
 * (just as a note, I'm not really sure these ranges align properly. It seems unlikely that the user is keeping within such tight blocks - seems more plausible.)
 * Given the way this user is range-hopping and the doubt about whether they're actually confined to the blocks above, I doubt these range blocks would halt them. However, I imagine it would provide some level of hindrance. These ranges are roughly about 6000 addresses.
 * A look over http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rangecontribs/index.php?type=range&ips=24.135.80.0%2F21&limit=250 and http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rangecontribs/index.php?type=range&ips=24.135.64.0%2F20&limit=250 seems to show little collateral damage from these blocks - I would recommend that an admin go ahead and apply a 1 or 2 week soft block across both the ranges. Unless you want to do a hardblock (which seems unnecessary, given that lately this user's MO has not included the use of accounts) I don't think there's any need for a checkuser. Cheers! SpitfireTally-ho! 09:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of the public availability of this rangecontribs script - should I have been? Should we simply link it from WP:COLLATERAL and WP:SPI?
 * I agree that 24.135.64.0/19 seems reasonable. AFAICT the first contribution of the abuser from there was on February 12, which was 10 days ago, so I'd go for a 14 day soft block at a minimum. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He's back! Persistent editing by banned IP-hopping sockmaster Oldhouse2012 continues per User:24.135.84.89. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

24.135.64.0/19 (which covers both of the reported IPs) is now soft-blocked. I'll leave it to some other admin to assess if this is a sockpuppet; what they did as an anonymous was harmful enough for this block. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * has now been blocked by Joy. This covers all the IP addresses in this report. As such, I am closing this case. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

23 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

banned IP-hopping sockmaster Oldhouse2012 evading his ban to update population figures for settlements in Vojvodina, replacing 2002 census figures with 2011 figures. Per (most recent IP sock) and this one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

First three edits were to revert reversions of edits by Oldhouse2012 IP sock, same content Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:30, 23 February 2013 (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

 * Obvious socks are blocked. Closing. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

23 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

identical edits to last sock. In particular reverting my reversion of the sock here  and here. A checkuser should confirm this and may also uncover further socks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (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

 * - for a sleeper check. Rschen7754 00:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * / match to Oldhouse2012. Hrvatskiorao is a ✅ match to . is also a ✅ match to . Elockid   ( Talk ) 03:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * blocked and tagged. SpitfireTally-ho! 16:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

24 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The first edit of this IP was to delete the Hungarian name for a town in Vojvodina. This exact same edit was performed by another suspected sock of Oldhouse2012 on 9 Jan here and User:79.175.95.39 (another suspected sock of Oldhouse2012) and has had similar edits from Account2013 (a confirmed sock). Also deleting whole sections and see also templates from articles. UPDATE:now making personal attacks and threats on User:IvanOS talk page per. Requesting immediate IP block. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * It's the same guy, blocked the Latin American IP being used as a proxy. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, there was also - can someone do a checkuser and see if they're still using the same IPs or should we block some others? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought Elockid CU'd that one per above? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * the IP addresses used by the accounts in the previous case will have all been auto-blocked, so this IP address must be a new one. Not sure a checkuser could achieve anything here given the restrictions on linking IPs to user accounts - meaning that we can't in general check an IP address to see what accounts rest above it. If you're really concerned about this you could step the block on the IP up to a hardblock. (PS. could we get a block on JaOpetJa please? We'll then be able to close both cases). Cheers, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to know the IPs, I just want someone who can know that to extend the block over there so that the rate at which they spawn is possibly reduced. (Blocked the third one now.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little unclear about what you want a checkuser to do here. All the accounts we're currently aware of have been blocked and checked for sleepers, in the previous case. Checking this new IP wouldn't turn up any new IP addresses on the same range or allow us to extend the block / calculate a rangeblock (since this is a proxy). It might turn up some new accounts which have used this IP address, but it is generally considered inappropriate for a checkuser to find accounts this way. Hardblocking the IP address is a better solution for dealing with any accounts sitting on top of it (although I'd be surprised if there are any).
 * Sometimes we might check an account to get the underlying IP address and set a block on them. However, the same doesn't really work in reverse - if you already have an IP address, you generally can't check it to get other IP addresses to set blocks on (I say generally, because under some circumstances this isn't true, but I don't think this is one of them)
 * As a side-note, the fact that the user is now resorting to proxies suggests that our previous rangeblock has had some success in hindering them. SpitfireTally-ho! 16:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing as everything is blocked. Rschen7754 03:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)