Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tiber3725/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Single-purpose accounts (Feliceletizia still conjectural, as well as many IPs): promoting the otherwise rather obscure Giordano Berti and his works. Hints of self-promotion, as deducible to anyone who is reasonably able to do anagrams. Khruner (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2019 (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
Rodrigotebani and Feliceletizia are ✅. Tiber3725 has not edited for many years and so is far too stale for any meaningful comparison. Yunshui 雲 水 12:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After a bit of thought, have blocked both Rodrigotebani and Feliceletizia, with Rodrigotebani as the assumed master. Happy for this to be changed if you want to include Tiber3725 as the master instead. Yunshui 雲 水 12:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine about the accounts. On a separate note, does the COISELF issue affect the Giordano Berti article itself? Khruner (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * the two confirmed accounts have no overlapping edits. Rodrigotebani stopped editing a month before Feliceletizia's single edit. Unless there is logged-out editing that I haven't seen, these two should not be blocked for sockpuppetry; as far as promotional editing the evidence is weak to me. Do you want to reconsider? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree with you on the promotional editing; Rodrigotebani's edits show a single-minded dedication to shoehorning "art historian Giordano Berti" and his various accomplishments and publications into as many articles as possible. I won't complain if you decide to unblock based on the lack of overlap (I misread June and July in the edit histories, my bad) but COISELF is most definitely an issue on the Giordano Berti article (as well as others that Rodrigotebani has edited), and the sudden appearance of a new SPA with identical CU data smells to me like an attempt to avoid detection. I could be wrong, though, it happens... Yunshui 雲 水 08:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * is this discussion still ongoing or is it safe to mark this case as closed? (Just wanted to double check.) -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No objection to closing, Yunshui's rationale is reasonable. No need to quibble over entries in the block log for an account that would be blocked either way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)