Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Psthomas/Archive

25 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

These accounts have been disrupting the Knanaya article lately, and are clearly the same person, or closely connected. They've reverted essentially the same material back into the article, or else advocated for that material on the talk page or edit summaries. However, sometimes they claim to be different people who happen to agree. They are clearly using these various IPs and accounts to game the system; the account was registered some time ago, but only came into this current debate when the article was semi-protected for the second time, prohibiting the IPs from edit warring. I'm requesting a CU check in the likelihood of other sleeper accounts.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Cúchullain t/ c  20:32, 25 August 2015 (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 117. ips are him and a few of them have also near admitted that, see my talk page history and WP:REFUND etc, I've also blocked a few. But it's too large a range and a busy one too, so a range block isn't feasible. I'll protect that particular article for now. Between and I, we've deleted three copyvio articles too. Drmies has also asked Psthomas if they are a reincarnation of  as some of the copyvios are word for word.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank the Spaceman for getting this ball rolling. Thanks also to my parents, without whom this would have never been possible. I want to thank my director, my dog... *cut* Drmies (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like there's anything more to do here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

These IPs have started editing the common target Knanaya with edits basically the same as the last several times. Same pattern of surreptitiously removing or downplaying cited material they don't like, especially Richard M. Swiderski; same broken English. I'm tagging, who has experience with this. Cúchullain t/ c 15:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Added several more IPs and a registered account who just did a copy-and-paste move to a title that suits Psthomas' MO., could you reconsider CU due to this account, and the likelihood that there are others?--Cúchullain t/ c 12:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing : I misread the (convoluted) edit history. Emir did not make the move themselves, they were apparently responding to this surreptitious technical move request. They are not connected; my apologies.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * THis was expected. I blocked hte account and many IP socks; I was against the unblock of the account but it was done. If you look at the different IP contribs you can see that it's him (including requesting an unblock). Someone else will have to deal with this now. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  00:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - We cannot compare named accounts to IPs through CU, sorry. GABgab 01:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we could not connect these two accounts, as Psthomas is for CU purposes. GABgab 13:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Master indefinitely blocked and latest IP blocked. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Not much to say here. Same IP ranges and same exact edits at Knanaya ( vs. ). Cúchullain t/ c 13:03, 7 July 2017 (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)  04:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Both blocked 72 hours and article already protected. Closing.

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account edits Knanaya and related articles in the same pattern as the master and previous socks. A few edits evince Psthomas' dislike of scholar Richard Swiderski and attempts to excise material cited to him from the article. This edit removes many of the same passages removed by Psthomas socks, for instance here.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Cúchullain t/ c  13:58, 25 October 2017 (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 adding Thomast48 as another sock to the investigation. Apart from the username and echoing similar positions, this editor also added a particularly detailed description of of Knanay wedding traditions to the article. (Compare Special:Diff/808292041 and Special:Diff/677831757). Please block both these accounts indefinitely. I would also recommend upping the protection level, since six rounds of semi-protection since Psthomas was blocked have not meaningfully addressed the problem. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm not inclined to block the suspected sock you've listed. This one is unique in that it engages on the talk page, which is something from what I can tell none of the previous socks have done. Its a tense religious area, and this could equally likely be another person who has similar views as the master here. The engagement on the talk page is enough of a behavioral difference to give me pause. Additionally, the username is nothing special here: Thomas or some variation of it is probably the most common name for males from Saint Thomas Christian traditions: Saint Thomas being their patron. There might be enough here for a CU between the two listed accounts, however.TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - Endorsing for CU evidence per recommendation above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)