Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo/Archive

Report date June 21 2009, 00:24 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This is User Pe De Chinelo, coming back again. Has edited the Best Selling Game article with the same incorrect statements Chinelo made and has reverted an edit on Chinelo's page   chocobogamer      mine   00:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by   chocobogamer      mine


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Looks like the IP was the blocked user, but it has not edited in four days so a block at this point would not make sense. I moved this case from under the IP to the master account. If another IP pops up, please refile under this name. Thanks, — Jake   Wartenberg  22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date July 27 2009, 13:18 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Rolaye With Cheese (Already blocked as a sockpuppet)

200.158.243.90 (already marked on user page as suspected)


 * Evidence submitted by JamesBWatson

On 26 July 2009 Rolaye With Cheese was blocked as a sockpuppet of Pé de Chinelo.

On 27 July 2009 a new user Crotchety Old Fart started editing. Crotchety Old Fart's edits have been essentially repetitions of edits by Rolaye With Cheese which had been reverted.

This edit is an exact repetition of this one, and this is almost a repetition of this.

In this post Crotchety Old Fart picks up an argument from where Rolaye With Cheese had got to when blocked.

The user name Crotchety Old Fart is clearly a take off of Crotchety Old Man, who had been responsible for reverting edits by Rolaye With Cheese. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Blocked/tagged by Tiptoety. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Crotchety Old Man
Another blatantly obvious sock of User:Pé de Chinelo. Got the requisite give-away edit here. The 200.x.x.x and 201.x.x.x IPs are also socks.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Conclusions

 * User blocked and tagged. Page semi-protected for a year; the vandalism was just ridiculous. NW ( Talk ) 18:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Report date December 2 2009, 22:09 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Crotchety Old Man (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I added the IPs from the history of List of adventure films of the 2000s. Please undelete User_talk:Pé de Chinelo so we can see the comments made there. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * 1- All the IPs are the same user:
 * 201.68.139.235 2 December 2009 "Matrix is a good film, you should watch it."
 * 200.161.63.110 2 December 2009 "The matrix is a good aventure series"
 * 201.68.136.237 9 September 2009 "Matrix is a good adventure, you should watch it"
 * 2- One IP makes the same edit as one sock and as the sockmaster
 * 201.68.136.237 9 September 2009 "stubborn guy, tdk [The Dark Knight] is a crime drama not an action"
 * Rolaye With Cheese (sock) 18 July 2009 "The Dark Knight is a crime drama, not an action movie"
 * Pé de Chinelo 1 November 2008 "Not a crime movie, just because it has crime doesn't make it a crime movie, a crime movie is Godfather, Scarface or Pulp Fiction."


 * It's all a WP:DUCK case, all IPs belong to TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO S.A. - TELESP (searched in lacnic), it's Pe all the time, obsession with making up his own classification of stuff including action/drama films, action/adventure films, and crime/drama films, hitting the same films and topics (but not the same articles), among other behavioural traits. Make a checkuser to catch extra socks. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pe's talk page restored. MuZemike 07:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Case moved from the now-deleted Sockpuppet investigations/201.68.139.235. Only contributors were Enric Naval, SPCUClerkbot, and Crotchety Old Man. NW ( Talk ) 22:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We're past the rangeblock point here. Also, the abuse seems to be on and off, so I don't think semi-protection is going to do any good here. If anyone else here has any suggestions filter-wise, please discuss (in a nonchalant manner, of course). MuZemike 07:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...unless we can be convinced that all these recent edits in those articles have been by Pe only? MuZemike 07:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are we "past the rangeblock point"? That's exactly what I was hoping for.  And I don't see how people could not think all these edits are by Pe. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try this:
 * Conclusions
 * 1) 200.161.63.110 blocked 1 month.
 * 2) 201.68.128.0/17 blocked for 1 week.
 * 3) 201.27.168.0/21 blocked for 1 month.

Don't know what good it's going to do, though. MuZemike 19:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Report date December 14 2009, 21:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Crotchety Old Man (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Next time, Crotchety Old Man, please file the SPI case under the sockmaster's name and not under the IP. Thank you, MuZemike 20:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

201.68.128.0/17 blocked 1 month. MuZemike 20:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date December 26 2009, 23:37 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

See here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Crotchety Old Man (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Given the changing IPs, I have protected the current target page Heat (1995 film) for a few days. Response was this. Despite this, might ever increasing page protection might be one thing to consider? --Slp1 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Also discussed at ANI here and rangeblocks enacted as the disruption was continuing from other IPs.--Slp1 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ironically, the filer (Crotchety Old Man) today was himself indef'd, for sockpuppeteering and making legal threats. "Takes one to know one"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, adding another IP that has just popped up


 * --Slp1 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

IPs all blocked by various admins. Blueboy96 15:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Andrzejbanas
User's contributions here are similar to the edits by User:Pé_de_Chinelo. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * I've moved the various cases for the IPs into this case. The IPs are in the same range that this sockmaster has operated in before. All of the IPs have been blocked for vandalism, so I'm not sure how much more we can do here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello! I just wanted to note these IPs for future reference. He wasn't being blocked when I originally posted, so I figured I'd try to get it out of the way here. :) Thanks though! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

07 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

,,. This user seems to have sprung up another account and admits to being User:Pé de Chinelo. Most of his comments as of late are bringing up older arguments and attacking me on various pages. This account is also avoiding a ban. Help anyone? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2011 (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

 * Per self admission, I've blocked and tagged LordXVMon. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

20 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This is a user who has been user and ip hopping back and forth through wikipedia. He reverted my first post of suspecting him as a sockpuppet here. His specific genre edits are very similar and go for similar pages by his other blocked accounts here and here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2011 (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

 * and
 * are ✅ matches. The others are stale. TN X Man  19:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked TITandNICK, and merged this case into Pe de Chinelo. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

28 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Per admission and threat on my talk page. Given the threat of continuous socking, requesting a checkuser to investigate the possibility of an IP level block. &mdash;Kww(talk) 16:44, 28 February 2011 (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

 * - Already blocked, but endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing else found. I'm afraid CU will not be of much assistance here at all, as he is all over the place IP-wise. I don't even think a community ban will discourage him from socking. Sorry. –MuZemike 17:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

22 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

User has been repeatedly disrupting articles such as Little Miss Sunshine and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (and its associated talk page). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:06, 22 March 2011 (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
The only thing we can do here is liberally semi-protect all pages he hits.


 * The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has been semi-protected 1 month.
 * Talk:The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has been semi-protected 3 days.
 * I have left a note with User:Nehrams2020 to change the protection level from full to semi on Little Miss Sunshine, as this is clearly him.

–MuZemike 02:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Both IPs are blacklisted on a number of sites (according to robtex), so I blocked the unblocked one, 201.68.112.222, as an open proxy. We're done here, I think. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

01 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar edits made by BusSDriver and LordXVMon here. I believe he's trying to hide his sockpuppeting by contradicting himself as well as seen here and here. Just by looking at nearly the exact same pages he's editing, he's pretty obviously the same person. Compare LordXVMon, 201.68.137.2, and nearly every reply in the section involving adding the adventure category to Little Miss Sunshine. Not to mention this statement here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKww&action=historysubmit&diff=416392857&oldid=416367508 " I'm pé de Chinelo, but I'll be here forever, I'll create as many accounts as I want to, nobody can ban me." ]. Is that enough? Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2011 (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
Sock blocked as an obvious one. Unfortunately, he's IP-hopping all over the CIDR spectrum, so the only thing that can be done is semi- or full-protection of all the affected articles. –MuZemike 07:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

22 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same disruptive edits, same interests. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:01, 22 August 2011 (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
A match. TN X Man 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Elockid  ( Talk ) 20:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

09 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Outside the attacks on this page,, here he is making similar claims to the Heat article here: [Talk:Heat_(1995_film)#Crime_drama_or_Crime_thriller (since 2009!)]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2011 (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
✅, but no other accounts I saw. TN X Man 00:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Already blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

05 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Suspected to be sock of this user on IP's userpage. 1966batfan (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2011 (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

 * Yes, that tag was put on the IP's page two hours before you opened this account. Do you have any actual evidence other than this new tag? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the IP range and the "adventure film" related vandalism, I'm willing to class it as a sock. Blocked for a short period because the IP looks dynamic. This really was an abysmal presentation of evidence, though. Only someone already pretty familiar with Pe could have acted on it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll close, then. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

16 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

One of the main disruptions that Pe engages in is adding or changing genres for films. As you can see here all of the IPs were advocating adding a genre to the Hunger Games article. Also note that they were all SPA's.

On July 12 Andrzejbanas this post pointing out the fact that the IPs were Pe which was followed a few minutes later by this edit  where he returns to one of his favorite complaints about the genre listed for the film Léon: The Professional. This was followed by the inevitable personal attack on Andrzejbanas

A day later StarshopSTX shows up and advocates the same change.

While I have been typing this this edit was made where the user admits to being Pe.

Considering all the work that went into fixing Pes past vandalism here WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.* and also considering that Pe has made no attempt to perform a Clean Start I feel that this report still needs to be filed. Thanks for your time in looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * While this has sat here for over three days Pe has made more unsupported genre changes including this one where the nest of IP socks hit the talk page to begin with. . When someone finally gets to this would you please let me know if I did something in error in filing this that has slowed down any response to it. MarnetteD | Talk 03:52, 20 July 2012 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is him and I'm left wondering what he means by "I have been pardoned...". I see that he reverts numerous established users and doesn't use talk pages so I'm not inclined to think he is making the genuine efforts that he professes. Block evasion. (nothing is wrong with the filing)

StarShopSTX is blocked and tagged. No blocks on the IP addresses as none of them have edited in about a week. --MuZemike 03:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

09 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

We have had to deal with this editor for a few years now. The bulk of the evidence dealing with this current incarnation will relate to this project WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.* from earlier this year. In my work on that project I came across the fact that Pe had edited under the names and. While neither of these were tied to him at the time I mention them now as an example of his penchant for long user names. After noticing this new editor going to articles that had previously been edited by Pe I began to check the edit and found that right from the start he was doing exactly the same kinds of things as in the past. In the project linked above we found, time and again, the he enjoyed adding studios to film articles that had nothing to do with the making of the film. Here is just one of several hundred examples.

So:
 * 1) Second article edited (another editor had already caught the incorrect info on the first article edited) he added two studios that had nothing to do with the film to the studio portion of the infobox and added Disney Studios as a distributor. Adding the Disney name is another of his habits as well as editing Disney articles.
 * 2) Next article added Pathe as the makers of the film even though they had nothing to do with it. This is another of his favorite names to add to article infoboxes as can be seen here
 * 3) Next article Again added a studio that had nothing to do with the film and compounded things by hiding it as an EGG

Other edits are cosmetic and a few are okay but that is another hallmark of Pe's socks. I am continuing to check the rest of this new socks edits but I wanted to file this ASAP when I found too many that fit the old pattern.MarnetteD | Talk 20:02, 9 October 2012 (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, reverted.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

28 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User has been making same disruptive edits to the Sucker Punch (film) article and disruptive comments  that are identical to Pé de Chinelo. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:22, 28 October 2012 (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 a week.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

28 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

And yet another IP whose has been making unconstructive edits to the same article immediately after the other IP was blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:12, 28 October 2012 (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 new IP, protected Sucker Punch. Unfortunately, Pé edits through a /15, so no range blocking is possible.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)