Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro/Archive

27 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

These three users (the two named and the IP) have the same edit pattern at Middle Ages, engaging in an edit war there today. They also have the same edit pattern at Nina Dobrev. Would seem odd for three separate entities to have the same two interests with little to no edits at other articles. only (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * At the same time that this investigation was opened, I separately started a related discussion on these users (and how they seem to be socks) at Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents. Further evidence is there. – Quadell (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To summarize: strong circumstantial evidence suggests that all these accounts are at least meatpuppets of, and probably sockpuppets of,, who has been topic-banned from editing Bulgaria-related articles. – Quadell (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer Cas Liber's question below, yes, I believe there is. Ceco31's very last edits before being blocked were to Bulgarians. He tended to focus on just a few articles at a time, moving on to new ones, and always emphasizing Bulgarian heritage and contributions in his edits. While he was blocked for 3 months (with account creation blocked as well), no apparent sockpuppets appeared. As soon as the 3 month block expired, and he was technically able to create new accounts, these new accounts started showing up and began editing the exact same article he had been editing in a very similar way. They focus on the same sort of articles, and use the same characteristic sort of edits. Since they're being used to evade a topic ban, I believe all these accounts should be indef blocked. – Quadell (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Clearly all three are the same person - but is there enough on behavioural grounds to link with ? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , Sumatro was created on August 7, 2013, before the expiration of Ceco's block. In addition, although socks can be sneaky, I see no stylistic evidence linking Ceco to the other accounts. I've blocked Sumatro for one week based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * JanHusCz blocked per WP:DUCK (look at the days on which both accounts were active over the last few months), closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, Sumatro emailed me saying they were affected by JanHusCz's autoblock, implying that they are a ✅ match. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

26 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Over the past few months there have been suspicious edits on the pages Middle Ages and talk:Middle Ages. The discussion is broken down into two parties, one which asserts that the article under-represents the contribution of Bulgaria to the Middle Ages and the other who disagree. The first party is made up almost entirely of single purpose accounts, as demonstrated in the table below.

A previous SPI found that JanHusCz was a sockpuppet of Sumatro and blocked in January. Given how there is now an issue with SPAs there may be an overlap. So many accounts gravitating to the talk page and being generally in agreement seems unlikely. It is a popular article, but in April the talk page received just 628 views. Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * These are trumped up charges to me. I don't know who is Sumatro or any other editors, include you. I'm new in Wikipedia and my contributions are only few maps and comments. Look at carefully my work in the article. None of my edits and comments are pro-Bulgarian. How long is forbidden to comment in Talk page? Read carefully my arguments there, before to make wrong summaries as you make now. It is unpleasantly, offensive and unwelcome as a whole. Please, comment the content and read No personal attacks.
 * Sorry, if I'm wrong, but I think that you supported one of the two parties in the discussion and you just want to destroy the competition with the way "Person - problem. No person - No problem". In this case "Editors - problem. No editors - No problem". Your claims seems too paranoid, by me. I comment on this Talk page, because I agree the claims of these users (I don't know what is their relations). In medieval Europe exist 3 empires - Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire and Bulgarian Empire. The Empire of Germans is mentoined in the article (even is very, very, very mentoined, especially the Frankish Empire), Byzantine - also is written in details, but Bulgarian Empire - The Second Empire in Europe (look at Asparukh, recognized as emperor by the Byzantine emperor Constantine IV in 681 and Tervel, who is recognized as Caesar in 705), where was created the Cyrillic script, one of the most powerful country in Middle Ages is presented with 2 - 3 sentences. I think that every historian and every person, who is looking even one historical book will not agree with the way how Bulgarian Empire is represented in this article. Their reactions are understandable, but your reaction is too strange. I see that the most of your enemies, suspected by you, are from different countries - Portugal, Bulgaria, etc., while their opponents comes from England and USA. The English - American editors knows too small about the history of Eastern Europe, because of the years of Cold war. One example from my country - the most Western-Europeans knows allmost nothing about Prague and her role in Holy Roman Empire, because Czchoslovakia were a part of Eastern bloc before 1989. Bulgaria is the same case. Many sources in Talk page:Middle Ages explain this and is not bad to see and read these sources and what they say. Even if this is not so important, the editors of the first party are presenting sources from many countries - Germany, Bulgaria, Slovakia. Can you explain me why the editors of the other party use only English and American sources in the article, but they ignored all foreign sources? It is madness! It seems nationalistic, by me.--Mandramunjak (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In the last six months about two dozen editors have left comments at Talk:Middle Ages. As far as I can tell in this period only six editors have left a comment with peculiar punctuation in the form of a space before a comma (" ,"). Of these six editors, five are suspected socks. Here's the list.


 * 28 December - Sumatro (once)
 * 8 January - 195.24.37.106 (once)
 * 23 January - Sumatro (twice)
 * 23 January - Sumatro (4 times)
 * 25 January - Sumatro (5 times)
 * 28 January - Amandajm (once; not a suspected sock)
 * 28 January - Sumatro (5 times)
 * 28 January - Sumatro (3 times)
 * 29 January - 195.24.37.106 (once)
 * 3 February - 195.24.37.106 (32 times)
 * 6 February - 195.24.37.106 (5 times)
 * 11 February - 195.24.37.106 (3 times)
 * 16 February - Sumatro (3 times)
 * 12 April - Magnus Agripa (once)
 * 24 April - Magnus Agripa (once)
 * 26 April - Magnus Agripa (5 times)
 * 27 April - Magnus Agripa (once)
 * 28 April - Ludogoro (once)
 * 11 May - Mandramunjak (once)

In the case of Amandajm—whose not a suspected sock—the extra space appears to be just a coincidental mistake. I doubt its just a coincidence in the case of Sumatro, 195.24.37.106, and Magnus Agripa though. The constant use of this peculiar punctuation clearly links these suspected socks.

As for Ludogoro and Mandramunjak, the instances could be just coincidences, but these accounts have fewer edits overall, and the users are suspected socks. However, out of Ludogoro's thirteen total edits to the article, three times he added content with the punctuation: 8 May (twice), 8 May (twice), 12 May (twice). So the extra space is likely more than a mere coincidence.

Furthermore, Ludogoro's first Wiki-contrib was to the article in which he added large paragraph with formatted references 24 March. The next day Magnus Agripa made his first Wiki-contrib in the form of his userpage 25 March. These edits by themselves suggest that these accounts are socks of an experienced Wikipedian, and the fact that they first appeared within a day of each other suggests they are controlled by the same puppeteer.

On the Commons, Sumatro has a history of uploading 'Bulgarian' themed images that are copyright violations. In case, he uploaded a map that he claimed was his work but which was clearly a scan from a book. Mandramunjak's first Wiki-contrib was to add a map to the article which was similarly a copyvio 12 April,.

Mandramunjak's next three Wiki-contribs were on 24 April, in a particularly heated topic on the talkpage. These edits fell within one hour of four edits by Magnus Agripa  , and four edits by 151.237.102.118 all in the same topic. So it seems as if the puppeteer was using Mandramunjak, Magnus Agripa, and 151.237.102.118 to tag-team the opposition at this point.

151.237.102.118 is clearly (sometimes) controlled by the puppeteer since he participated in the shenanigans at Talk:Nina Dobrev, in which Sumatro used his confirmed sock JanHusCz to tried 'win' an edit war. 151.237.102.118's edits to that talkpage took place on 21 November  , half an hour after a comment in the same topic by JanHusCz 14:07, followed by a comment by Sumatro a couple hours later 21:06. Also, within days in the same topic, 195.24.37.106 left four comments 25 November. So we know Sumatro used JanHusCz as a sock at Talk:Nina Dobrev. The above shows that he likely using 151.237.102.118 and 195.24.37.106 as well. That'd mean that 151.237.102.118 and 195.24.37.106 were likely under his control at Talk:Middle Ages.

Back to the 24 April edits at Talk:Middle_Ages, Magnus Agripa makes several edits concerning a German-language source which he translates into English and later upon request gives the German original 17:42 19:06. About an hour later, 151.237.102.118 quotes from the exact same source, revealing that he and Magnus Agripa are controlled by the same puppeteer 20:01.

So all the suspected socks connect except Zheko Sousa, but he's only given one contrib so far, so there's little evidence to work with.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice analysis. It's too bad that is wrong. If we apply this tactic to all users in Wikipedia, we will find that Sumatra has over 1 million puppets. There are 2 problems:
 * 1. Geographically - when I look out the window, I see Bratislava, not Sofia. Rivaldeiro obviously is from Portugal, Magnus Agripa - from Bulgaria, etc. Maybe we are international group? Interesting theory for anyone who believes in conspiracies.
 * 2. Social - I do not know none of these users.
 * But all this giant work is great. Congratulations!--Mandramunjak (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2014 (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

 * - On a quick look (just the list of diffs and the table) there definitely seems like enough evidence for CU. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 1, ✅ to one another:
 * Group 2, ✅ to one another:
 * It is that the groups are the same. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm acting on the assumption that they do have the same master based on editing area. All accounts blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 2, ✅ to one another:
 * It is that the groups are the same. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm acting on the assumption that they do have the same master based on editing area. All accounts blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 2, ✅ to one another:
 * It is that the groups are the same. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm acting on the assumption that they do have the same master based on editing area. All accounts blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is that the groups are the same. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm acting on the assumption that they do have the same master based on editing area. All accounts blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm acting on the assumption that they do have the same master based on editing area. All accounts blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

14 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

A good summary of the available evidence is at this talk page. The link between Vargala and Sumatro seems established by the fact that both are reliably linked to the same IP (a repeatedly-listed sock of Sumatro's, and an admitted address of Vargala's), while the link with Stolichanin is suggested based on the fact that Stolichanin and Vargala have been attempting to add/replace the same content on Sofia, and Vargala is an WP:SPA created after Stolichanin had promised to leave Sofia alone and been finally unblocked after his edit warring on it. Additionally, Vargala repeatedly suggests having a "past" with and Sofia, for which being the same user as Stolichanin is the readiest explanation. Checkuser is requested because, judging from archives, Sumatro has previously shown to have a large number of dormant socks. LjL (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2016 (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

 * - Please, compare the two suspected socks and check for sleepers. Master and previous socks are .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked and tagged (in a moment). Because of the evidence in the log, I've taken the unusual step of confirming them to the master. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged (in a moment). Because of the evidence in the log, I've taken the unusual step of confirming them to the master. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged (in a moment). Because of the evidence in the log, I've taken the unusual step of confirming them to the master. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged (in a moment). Because of the evidence in the log, I've taken the unusual step of confirming them to the master. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged (in a moment). Because of the evidence in the log, I've taken the unusual step of confirming them to the master. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

29 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * - this is an account only created to push some unsourced medieval political maps uploaded by, a sock of Sumatro, misleadingly implying that Bulgaria was the largest state in Europe

An IP from the range of an IP that is mentioned at the SPI of User:Sumatro's casepage's archive continues to operate, for which there is a strong evidence that it is was used by and the IPs' contributions share a great similarity with other IPs and active users. I have analyzed the contributions of several IPs and thus I suspect that there may be an active(not stale) sockpuppet of User:Sumatro who edited Sofia article before several days. If this can be a further evidence the case should be re-opened. I have found the following IPs' contributions, confirming that they are Sumatro's socks by stylistic evidence(using specific grammar, personal attacks in Cyrillic Bulgarian instead of an argumentation - typical ad hominems that Sumatro uses, who agreed for the removal of the crime section insisted only by the confirmed sock-account and post trollings at Talk:Sofia, Sofia, and other talkpages), the IPs had came out of nowhere as ducks to edit-war on the side of User:Stolichanin until the article was semi-protected, they share also the urge to edit Sofia's collage and climate's section. Because of their edits, I believe, these IPs are indistinguishable from Sumatro and should be blocked:
 * (Range 1) - the same range which includes  listed as a suspected sokpuppet on 26 May 2014 at Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro/Archive because of the edits at Middle Ages and Nina Dobrev, so checking the whole range of network provider Mobiltel would be reasonable
 * (Range 2)
 * (Range 2)
 * (Range 3) - a confirmed proxy server
 * (Range 3)
 * (Range 3)
 * (Range 3)
 * (Range 3)

I believe that all these IPs above have been used by Sumatro, evidently confirmed between each other and participating in the edit-war at Sofia article on the side of, but I also find out that they are connected to the contributions of another user. Despite being the IPs of Sumatro, all these IP ranges predominantly edit the following articles: Sofia, Economy of Bulgaria (editing the same statistics), average salaries and wages, motorways of Bulgaria - Trakiya motorway, Maritsa motorway etc., sports teams and players - I think it is explicable why the IPs above greatly resemble the contributions of this user account. I am strongly suspicious, to me the most likely explanation is that this active user account and the IPs are managed by the same person, if so the clear links between this user and Sumatro are the IPs from the range of - because the IP 195.24.37.106 is indeed linked at Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro/Archive in 2014. , who is recognisible by Sumatro's remarkable grammar style, acted as another person at a discussion for Suamtro's uploaded collage with the blocked socks 151.237.102.118 and at Talk:Sofia.

I found even more evidence at WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Bulgaria - two more IPs from the same range interested in Bulgarian sports and one more account whose only purpose is a map uploaded by, who is a confirmed sock of Sumatro:

More recently used confirmed socks such as and  should be compared to the suspected accounts because the master is stale. I've listed many IPs in order to compare their contributions to these of the users mentioned, I don't necessarily insist for the checkuser to check or block all the IPs. Serdik (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

You really need to think on the way you treat contributors here. It's not a good feeling, when you do something in order to contribute and improve an article about something you care about, and then to be accused of something repeatedly, 2 days in a row, without any explanation whatsoever.

I really did not lose my entire day looking for suitable CC photos on Flickr, uploading them here and adding them to the articles of my city and my country, and then to be accused of something which forces me to use more of my time to do silly explanations. I could've used this time to contribute to some underdeveloped articles here. That's the point of Wikipedia, and not what you're doing here! Nicksss93 (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a somewhat involved third party (I previously dealt with the edit wars at Sofia). I understand your annoyance, but I just want to point out that there have been several accounts, many of which ultimately found to belong to the same user, trying to push their own version of the Sofia image mosaic. I believe this is the reason why Serdik is wanting to make sure the current batch, which happens to include you, isn't part of that (although seeing how you have had an account since 2009, I find that somewhat unlikely). LjL (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think there is an issue of confirmation bias. Editors of Sofia messing with the mosaic and some other things were shown to be socks before, and now one is tempted to assume any similar edits are the same. I think given the large number of IPs, this would be better handled by requesting semi-protection of Sofia and, if that's not enough, concentrating on actual WP:SPAs with a real chance of being socks. LjL (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This is a poorly presented mess. I've removed Nicksss93 from the "list" of suspected puppets. The account was rejected before (see archives).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No basis for any change in action. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Targatron was blocked at 04:07, February 26, 2018 for edit warring to argue that Nina Dobrev should be described as Bulgarian rather than Canadian. Less than 30 minutes later the 106 IP showed up to support Targatron's argument on the article talk page  and to restore  the article edit that Targatron had been  blocked for edit warring over (compare to  for example). These were the first edits by this IP in a few years, but the previous history of this IP shows an obvious overlap with Sumatro, including edits to Sumatro's talk page. The IP is a static address with few edits, none of which are outside of Sumatro's interests. The IP has previously been reported in this SPI report.

Sumatro's first SPI report involved socking to make edits to Nina Dobrev with the argument that she should be listed as Bulgarian rather than Canadian. Compare Sumatro's various talk page arguments (  are early examples from the extensive history) with Targatron's recent comments in Talk:Nina Dobrev in the thread "Nationality and WP:BLPLEAD" This is the same argument that has been extensively discussed on the talk page, and the same behaviour; usourced claims that she is still a Bulgarian citizen based on WP:OR, and removal of mentions of her as a Canadian based on a lack of proof of Canadian citizenship   (note that Canadians shows that Canadian citizenship is not a requirement for being considered Canadian, and the article has multiple refs describing her as Canadian). Meters (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

I have no relationship with this user and this not my IP. It seems like the same arguments, because that is the argument and I read the whole dispute in talk page, after that I use a many of the previous argument by another users to give a weight for this theory what I say. But I see in the talk archieve that article have a "interesting history" and you are free to begin an investigation of that if you are not sure.--Targatron (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Targatron just posted to my talk page User talk:Meters asking me to explain a point that has already been discussed extensively in the article's talk page. Yes it's in an archive, but so are all of the previous arguments, which Targatron claims to have read and used as the source fo rhis argument. Meters (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Closing this SPI because it's been sitting for way too long and everything is three months old or older. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This talk page posting at Talk:Nina Dobrev is classic for the sockpuppet that's been making the same tired arguments for years. I have no doubt this new account is more of the same. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK – well hopefully someone will look at the behavioral evidence then. This editor is making the exact same arguments that other Sumatro socks have made over the years. You just need to go through Talk:Nina Dobrev and its archives to see. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * FTR, while SPI never tied them in because the SPI filing was allowed to lapse and the editor in question never posted again after the SPI report, was definitely also a sock, so that's at least 3 that have edited Nina Dobrev. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

I am not in any way related to the user that has been suggested. All of the arguments that I have posted on Nina Dobrev's talk page have been logical and presented with good faith, in order to better the article, and the changes I've made have been appropriately sourced. I meant to start a civilized discussion, which has ended up being tainted by accusations and nitpicking. Coconutyou3 (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The case is . Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any strong evidence of socking. Looking at the interaction history for the proven and confirmed socks, the only accounts that have edited Talk:Nina Dobrev are Sumatro and Coconutyou3, with a 7 year gap.  That doesn't say socking to me.  If lots of people are making similar arguments, maybe it's just that this is a popular point of contention.  Not to mention that Coconutyou3 is the only account that uses mobile.
 * All that being said, my suggestion is that if this comes up again, bring it to WP:AN and ask that WP:1RR be imposed as a WP:AC/DS under WP:ARBEE on this article for any edit involving the subject's citizenship and/or ethnicity. Cite this case with the request, and ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)