Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi/Archive

Report date March 12 2009, 00:49 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Oli Filth(talk

Seems to be a tag-team of existing and new single-purpose accounts intent on re-adding coverage of Oscar Bonello back to various articles to do with audio; I believe this is meat-puppeting by his various students/co-workers.

Lots of this material was originally added by Bonello himself as ; I'm not sure if he still has anything to do with this (see also WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/OscarJuan).

Evidence is the contribution histories of the above accounts; should speak for itself. In particular, see the attempt at canvassing by, e.g. ,. Oli Filth(talk 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For specific diffs, see, for instance: But, again, their respective edit histories should be indicative, as none of them has made edits other than to do with Oscar Bonello. began editing again (after 7 months of inactivity) just a couple of days after I began removing some of this material, the account of was created just one day later. Oli Filth(talk 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * these two edits on my talk page within 10 minutes of each other (by RobertTanzi, by RodolfoMita).
 * This edit by RodolfoMita to restore this removed comment from RobertTanzi.
 * This sequence of edits within 3 days, all to reinstate the same material at MP3 (by Albert-Kraft, by RobertoBozzi, by RobertTanzi, by RodolfoMita)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * How does canvassing apply to sockpuppetry? Could you do me a favor and list the diffs that you see demonstrate these accounts are socks? Another admin may review before then, but giving us diffs will ensure quicker review/action on the case. (provided your diffs/evidence is concise). ——  nix eagle email me 04:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I suggested above, I believe this is meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry.  has explicitly canvassed for people to join his efforts.  As for specific diffs, I've added them above.  Oli Filth(talk 19:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Its clear to me that: ==   ==.
 * Ex: RobertTanzi edit and RodolfoMita edit : note the "Dear ..." bit in both posts by both accounts.
 * Similar edit patterns in the edit summaries and the fact the accounts starting with roberto revert to the same revision without fail indicate that they are the same user.
 * - I have no clue how this got added or on what evidence. I don't see any relation or edits to the affected articles.
 * - is a meat puppet, especially as his only 3 edits are to that article and that account has prior knowledge of a conversation. However the account refers to Roberto Bozzi in the third person and uses different phrasing.


 * I have blocked all sockpuppets indef. Could another admin review and do something with the meat puppet? After that please tag/close ——  nix eagle email me 16:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 22 2009, 10:02 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Oli Filth(talk

Albert-Kraft already identified as a meat-puppet in a recent SPI case (see Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi/Archive), and warned accordingly.

Has made another similar edit since warning (similar in the sense of still overly-promoting Oscar Bonello). Within 15 minutes, the account of ErnestoVicente was created, and made another pro-Bonello edit to the MP3 article.

I'm beginning to believe these are all socks rather than meats, because of, for instance, their method of referring to the talk page sections in their edit summaries (e.g. ErnestoVicente, RobertoBozzi, RobertTanzi.)

Oli Filth(talk 10:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Moving case from Sockpuppet investigations/Albert-Kraft, should be here instead. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 10:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see large similarities between the style of edit summaries in ErnestoVicente's edits and RobertTanzi's, but I don't see any in Albert-Kraft's. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 10:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Albert-Kraft hasn't used this summary style. Oli Filth(talk 10:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ErnestoVicente is a sock, blocked by PeterSymonds. Meanwhile, Albert-Kraft will be kept an eye on, but for now is unblocked. Foxy Loxy Pounce!
 * Conclusions

Report date March 25 2009, 19:52 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Oli Filth(talk

Follow-up to Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi/Archive. Two new accounts created within 30 minutes of each other to continue the disruption.

RodolfMita is a fairly obvious "continuation" account of. Binksternek is some kind of straw man set up to imitate (NOTE: I do not believe that Binksternet is anything to do with this; he's an existing respected editor). See e.g. the trio of edits between them (RodolfMita, Binksternek, RodolfMita), and compare with e.g. that of.

Oli Filth(talk 19:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just added another - see .  Oli Filth(talk 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jusr added another - edit almost identical to that of  (see below) ( and, and within 1/2 an hour of each other.  Oli Filth(talk 17:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Blocked the two listed accounts as socks. Its pretty obvious. Perhaps we should consider asking a checkuser to do a block on the underlying IP addresses currently being used. BTW a clerk should tag the two blocked accounts. ——  nix eagle email me 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would guess ; an account listed in original SPI but not blocked. Traceroute takes us to South America, where all of this trouble originally stemmed from!  Oli Filth(talk 20:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts Tagged —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * R.Tanzi is a pretty obvious and blatant sock. Keeping case open to wait for a passing admin to block. Mayalld (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's another one here:
 * I imagine he'll keep this up for a while. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I imagine he'll keep this up for a while. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked as a pretty obvious sock. Also blocked  as a sock due to evidence presented above. Reset 's block length to a month due to block evasion and left note to cut it out or will be indef next time. KnightLago (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date April 5 2009, 17:07 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Oli Filth(talk

RobertTanzi (et al) was indef blocked due to previous sockpuppeting (see Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi/Archive). Now clearly evading block via proxies or similar. See e.g. the following edits (RobertTanzi, 94.76.196.59, 85.25.179.117).

Is there a better place to report block evasion? Oli Filth(talk 17:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just added . Oli Filth(talk 21:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * The prior cases seem to have established that RobertTanzi is editing from South America, whilst these IPs are in the UK, Germany and Canada. Whilst the reporter has acknowledged this discrepancy, and suggested that proxies are involved, I can find no evidence of proxies being used, and the reporter has presented none. Furthermore, the language used by RobertTanzi and his known socks in edit summaries has a number of distinctive traits which are not present in the edit summaries used by any of these IPs. Mayalld (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

for the reasons stated above. Mayalld (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions