Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimSala/Archive

28 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

There have been a number of very similar edits recently made to the Battle of Singapore article that follow the line of highlighting reports of the poor performance of Australian forces during this battle (alleged or otherwise). Whilst reviewing these edits I noticed a number of similarities between the contributions of several recent editors, as well as links to edits on a range of other articles which suggests (to me at least) that this maybe the work of one or a number of sock puppets. TimSala has been around the longest (since Oct 10); however, pretty much stopped editing in 2013 and only resumed again in Apr 15, while 100menonmars and Makesenseofit were created in May 14 and Mar 15 respectively. All accounts were active in Apr 15, and most have even edited the same article (Battle of Singapore especially) around the same time so if connected they would appear to be being operated contrary to Wikipedia policy IRT multiple accounts. Firstly, pls consider the IP recently making the edits at Battle of Singapore - User:121.44.135.48. According to Geolocate this belongs to iiNet Limited and is located in Sydney, New South Wales. Now consider an IP that has recently been editing at Operation Compass - User:121.44.136.27. According to Geolocate this also belongs to iiNet Limited and is located in Sydney, New South Wales. An established editor, User:100menonmars, recently admitted to being IP 121.44.136.27 here (they forgot to logon apparently), so given that the IPs are very likely to be the same person I'd say it is 100menonmars editing the Battle of Singapore article whilst logged out.
 * Initial evidence

Secondly, there may also be a connection between User:TimSala (who also recently made edits to Battle of Singapore) and 100menonmars (who has apparently never edited the article - expect probably as an IP per my reasoning above). Neither seem to have edited the same article (recently at least that I could see); however, one similarity is that both have used a similar citation method on occasion (specifically being the inclusion of a question mark (?) next to a missing page number, presumably the result of a Google Book preview). Pls consider here for 100menonmars at Operation Compass and here  for TimSala at Battle of Singapore. This doesn’t seem likely to be coincidental.

Further, the contributions of TimSala and IP 121.44.135.48 are also very similar in places, suggesting a connection between them, and reinforcing the possibility of a connection between 100menonmars and TimSala by association. Consider TimSala inserted information about the defeatist attitude of Maxwell here, the two days later IP 121.44.135.48 makes this edit with the edit summary “More on defeatist attitude of Maxwell.” Whilst it is possible that this is a coincidence, or a case of one editor’s work inspiring that of another to expand etc, I am dubious given the other similarities.

My suspicion extends to User:Makesenseofit, who has also made edits to Battle of Singapore recently. Makesenseofit inserted the same Sydney Morning Herald reference to a Peter Stanley article at Battle of Singapore here as TimSala did at Battle of Muar here  several days before. Again, this is possibility a case of one editor inspiring another but it seems unlikely.

Another similarity b/n 100menonmars and IP 121.44.135.48 (to draw the connection further) is in the inclusion of quotes within references. Pls see 100menonmars doing it here at Operation Compass and IP 121.44.135.48 doing it here  at Battle of Singapore. Makesenseofit also uses a very similar citation style to 100menonmars and the IPs, including quoted material followed by the citation. For instance here at Battle of Singapore and here  at Battle of Greece. This style is not a common one in my experience and further suggests a link b/n these accounts (unlike a standard short citation, variations of which are obviously used widely by numerous different editors). TimSala also on occasion uses a similar citation method, pls see here.

Another similarity is the tendency for TimSala, Makesenseofit and 100menonmars to not leave a space b/n the end of the markup for a reference and the next sentence (for instance: "….Paul E. Sigmund, p. 139, University of Pittsburgh, 1977 In November 1970," Pls consider numerous examples of TimSala doing this here at Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–90) as far back as 2013, Makesenseofit doing it here repeatedly  at Battle of Greece, and 100menonmars also doing it here repeatedly  at Greco-Italian War.

Finally these accounts—the IPs, 100menonmars, TimSala, and Makesenseofit—all seem to edit in some similar areas: for instance Battle of Greece, Battle of Singapore, Battle of Crete, Battle of Muar and Greco-Italian War and they all seem to have included similar type information on occasion (i.e. to do with Australian military history, but more specifically information that might be seen to either be critical of the performance of Australian forces, or at least highlighting losses / failures). Of cse this information has its place if cited to reliable sources and included with the proper context and historical analysis; however, the likely deception involved here in operating multiple accounts to insert this information is concerning and leads me to question the motives involved here.

In summary these accounts share a number of similarities in their behavior, specifically:
 * Similar use of quotes in citations;
 * Similar regular typographical errors (i.e. not leaving a space b/n reference mark up and the next sentence);
 * Similar use of a question mark (?) for an unknown page number in a number of citations (presumably found via a Google Books preview);
 * Editing similar / the same articles or topic areas and adding similar information (even occasionally from the same source); and
 * A self admitted link b/n 100menonmars and one of the IPs.

Consequently, I would like to request a check user on these accounts as I feel there is sufficient behavioural evidence to suggest a link b/n them. Equally it will likely either prove the connection or exonerate these editors either way. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Response to User:Bbb23 decline of check user:
 * Gday – the abusive behaviour I'm concerned about is more to do with operating multiple accounts without any valid reason for doing so (per WP:SOCK) and without acknowledging that they are alternative accounts (per WP:MULTIPLE). The fact that all / most of these have repeatedly edited the same article (Battle of Singapore) one after the other from 14 Mar to 27 Apr 15 and that they are all active at the same time indicates that this is not a case of a user abandoning an old account and starting afresh. As such my concern is (assuming the accounts are the same editor) that they are trying to hide their identity whilst making these edits in order to avoid scrutiny (or for some other reason which is unlikely to in the best interests of the encyclopedia). I think I have shown a significant connection b/n the account in terms of behaviour, hence the reason I requested the check user. Apologies if I have erred here but it seemed fairly compelling to me and I couldn’t see any innocent reason why a user would conduct themselves in such a manner. Anotherclown (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed the effect of multiple sockpuppets editing one after the other, whilst outwardly perhaps not appearing disruptive, creates the false impression of consensus to insert what might otherwise be considered controversial material requiring discussion prior to inclusion (for instance the contribution history at the Battle of Singapore is evidence of this in my opinion - pls see here ). Anotherclown (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Equally given 100menonmars' block in Feb 15 following edit warring at the Greco-Italian War, the appearance of Makesenseofit soon after (in Mar 15) and their editing in similar fields may also be seen as an attempt to avoid scrutiny following the previous sanction which would seem to qualify as abusive behavior as far as I can tell. Anotherclown (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition to editing Australian related articles, another similarity b/n 100menonmars and Makesenseofit is a common interest in topics related to Italy during World War II. Many of their edits take the form of highlighting the Italian performance or contribution. For instance pls consider 100menonmars’ edits at Battle of Crete, , and at Greco-Italian War here , ,  and Makesenseofit’s edits at Battle of Greece here  and here. Anotherclown (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Further evidence:

A further similarity b/n all accounts is their use of edit summaries. Indeed very often 100menonmars, Makesenseofit and TimSala either do not use edit summaries at all (another similarity in itself) or when they do they have occasionally used some similar phrases to describe their edits. Pls consider:
 * “ Please do not remove sourced information again” – 100menonmars at Greco-Italian War versus “ Sourced claims, please do not remove ” – TimSala at Henri Charrière
 * “Lower number of POWs included in order for readers to decide” – 100menonmars at Operation Compass versus “Making readers aware of "General Wavell's Report" to do with the fall of Singapore” – Makesenseofit at Battle of Singapore
 * “ source included for u to verify & original pg https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Compass&diff=649276598&oldid=649133088” – 100menonmars at Operation Compass versus “ Source included ” – Makesenseofit at Battle of Greece
 * “ Reinserting Cenni's rank and christian name that were clearly removed in error” – 100menonmars at Siege of Tobruk versus “ Reinserting line with attached sources that had been removed” – TimSala at Henri Charrière . Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE as at 30 Apr 15 - Issue appears to more widespread than first thought

Following further investigation there appears to be also be significant intersections b/n 100menonmars and a number of other editors that have been active editing articles related to Italian World War II divisions and battle articles including:
 * User:Dontspeakloudly
 * User:Beepbeepfashion

Equally there also appear to be significant similarities b/n 100menonmars and earlier edits by a number of other editors on several articles associated with the battles of the Falklands War (although some accounts admittedly date back to 2010 and now seem to not be in use they seem very similar to those currently in use and indicate how widespread this problem may be). Indeed there appears to be quite a number of associated accounts editing here including:
 * User:Dancesthewaltz (also seems to have similarities with TimSala at British invasions of the Río de la Plata )
 * User:EmilioSnell
 * User:RobertoEscudo
 * User:Malvinero
 * User:Daniellukos

Given then number of accounts that seem to be appearing I would imagine there are others and I’m actually unsure now which one would be considered the Puppetmaster. Regardless, all of these exhibit many similarities in behaviour as the other accounts previously listed above with connection to the Battle of Singapore issue (although they don’t seem to have edited there).


 * Beepbeepfashion
 * repeated insertion of information about Italian medal winners
 * use of quotes in refs
 * not leaving a space between the end of reference markup and the next sentence
 * Diffs here for the above statements –
 * Also emphasis on Italian troops fighting well, here
 * And use of a question mark (?) to denote an unknown page number in a reference
 * In particular the insertion of information about Italian medal winners is very similar to 100menonmars here -, here, and


 * Dontspeakloudly
 * Use of quotes in refs
 * Emphasis on Italian troops fighting well
 * Use of a question mark (?) for an unknown page number in a reference
 * Diff here for above statements –


 * Dancesthewaltz
 * Not leaving a space between the end of a ref markup and the next sentence AND use of long quotes in a reference here at Battle of Mount Longdon, here at Battle of Mount Tumbledown and here at British invasions of the Río de la Plata
 * Use of a question mark in a reference for a missing page number, here at Battle of Mount Tumbledown
 * Dancesthewaltz at Battle of Mount Longdon inserted a redlink to a book into an article here: “the book'' Operation Corporate: The Falklands War, 1982 and an artist illustration of the photo appears in the frontcover of the book De La Plata a Malvinas written by Raul Eugenio” - in a very similar way to IP 121.44.135.48 at Battle of Singapore like this: “Bennett in his book Why Singapore Fell” –  (one of the earlier established IPs that I believe 100menonmars has used).


 * EmilioSnell
 * Use of quotes in references, here and here
 * not leaving a space between the end of reference markup and the next sentence, here
 * Use of a question mark in a reference for a missing page number, here at Goose Green and again at Mount Longdon


 * RobertoEscudo
 * not leaving a space between the end of reference markup and the next sentence


 * Malvinero
 * 100menonmars includes information about trials of Argentine soldiers for inhumane treatment of conscripts here at Battle of Mount Longdon on 17 Feb 15 . This seems to be an update on the information added by Malvino in Jan 11 here.
 * Malvinero also uses the term “Argie” in an edit summary like Daniellukos does here
 * Repeatedly not leaving a space between the end of reference markup and the next sentence


 * Daniellukos
 * not leaving a space between the end of reference markup and the next sentence . Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As of today an IP - User:49.180.163.247 has begun making a number of edits at Battle of Singapore. These edits follow a similar pattern to the previous suspected sock puppets, and whilst the IP appears to belong to the Optus ISP it also Geolocates to Sydney (like the iiNet Limited IP 121s above). Key similarities include:
 * Latest IP edits at Battle of Singapore of 1 May 15 follow same pattern
 * Use of the same Sydney Morning Herald article as a references ("The Day the Empire Died in Shame" - previously used by Makesenseofit here and TimSala here  on completely different articles as mentioned earlier);
 * Failing to leave a space b/n the end of ref markup and the next sentence - for example " At Bakri, from 18 to 22 January..."
 * Dif here for above cmts

As such this would appear to be a continuation of attempts by this editor to avoid scrutiny for their edits by appearing to be multiple different editors. Equally whilst the information being added is not blatantly incorrect, I note that although they were reverted twice already today  this editor has continued to add the information without discussion. As such this represents current and ongoing disruption which I think needs to be addressed fairly quickly (although given these sockpuppets seem to have gone undetected for 5 plus years I'd say the damage is now irreparable anyway.) Anotherclown (talk) 08:24, 1 May 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

 * I'm having some difficulty seeing the abusive behavior here. Your only bases seems to be that they have been active this month and that "most" have edited one article. Have their edits themselves been disruptive? Have they tried to gain the upperhand in a dispute? One of the named accounts, 100menonmars, was blocked for edit-warring back in February but I didn't see any of the other accounts "assisting". At this point, I don't see enough evidence of abusive behavior to warrant a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to decline the CU request for now. If Anotherclown presents sufficient evidence to warrant it, it can be reinstated by a clerk. I'm not going to be able to respond to whatever Anotherclown does because I won't be on-wiki shortly and for a chunk of time. Leaving it this way is clearer.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since is still away, and since this has been sitting here for a while, I decided to look at the evidence and found that there is now enough to warrant a check.
 * RobertoEscudo, Malvinero, and Daniellukos are . . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed socks + master . accounts tagged as suspected with no need for blocking. IPs inactive for over a week, so I haven't blocked any. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RobertoEscudo, Malvinero, and Daniellukos are . . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed socks + master . accounts tagged as suspected with no need for blocking. IPs inactive for over a week, so I haven't blocked any. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RobertoEscudo, Malvinero, and Daniellukos are . . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed socks + master . accounts tagged as suspected with no need for blocking. IPs inactive for over a week, so I haven't blocked any. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RobertoEscudo, Malvinero, and Daniellukos are . . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed socks + master . accounts tagged as suspected with no need for blocking. IPs inactive for over a week, so I haven't blocked any. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RobertoEscudo, Malvinero, and Daniellukos are . . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed socks + master . accounts tagged as suspected with no need for blocking. IPs inactive for over a week, so I haven't blocked any. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RobertoEscudo, Malvinero, and Daniellukos are . . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed socks + master . accounts tagged as suspected with no need for blocking. IPs inactive for over a week, so I haven't blocked any. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RobertoEscudo, Malvinero, and Daniellukos are . . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed socks + master . accounts tagged as suspected with no need for blocking. IPs inactive for over a week, so I haven't blocked any. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed socks + master . accounts tagged as suspected with no need for blocking. IPs inactive for over a week, so I haven't blocked any. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

15 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * Editor interaction utility

Apologies for starting another investigation so soon after the last one closed; however, unfortunately further likely sock accounts have been uncovered as part of the clean up process here. Some of these accounts are admittedly stale; however, this editor seems to come back to use accounts years later (see User:Wateroosunset2004 for example) and as such I think if they are proven to be socks they will need to be blocked (or at least marked as a likely sock) so that we can prevent their future disruptive use and to assist in attempting to clean up / scrutinise this editor's contributions.
 * Pls note that three of the accounts identified actually predate TimSala (who started editing Oct 2010), with Carnevaron starting in March 2010, Lookupthenumber in September 2009, and Enriqueceda start in March 2009 (possibly the original account?). Not sure what these means for how we administer / catalogue them going forward (especially if we later find others). Anotherclown (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Evidence

The evidence that these are socks of User:TimSala is as fols:
 * They use a similar editing style, including very similar typographical errors (e.g. not leaving a space b/n the end of reference mark up [i.e. ] and the next sentence - this was a key part of the behavioural evidence presented in the last TimSala case and was demonstrated not only by TimSala but all the confirmed socks) - pls see here for evidence of the newly identified accounts also doing this, , , , , , , , and ;
 * Similar edit summaries - either leaving a blank edit summary altogether, or use of similar words, or capitals (also as per the evidence in the last TimSala case, esp the use of blank edit summaries)
 * Consider especially the use of CAPs to make a point here, , and , as per TimSala
 * Editing in similar topic areas as either User:TimSala or one of his/her many previous sock puppets (especially topics related related to Argentina and or South America). For instance Dirty War, Montoneros, Antonio Domingo Bussi, Jorge Rafael Videla, Night of the Pencils and others. Rodolfoschneider even manages a few edits at Battle of Goose Green where quite a number of previously identified TimSala sock's have been shown to have edited.
 * In at least one instance at the article on Field punishment, User:TimSala even reinserted information that had been previously contributed by another of his suspected accounts (User:Lookupthenumber) here  but which had been reverted by User:MaxBrowne here, demonstrating the manner in which this pattern of editing has been used to distort consensus and to support edits made by the other socks.
 * IRT similarities b/n some of the new accounts (to demonstrate their connection to each other, not just the previous TimSala socks):
 * Consider use of similar language in edit summaries re "PEN" here and here
 * Very similar edit summary here re supposedly incorrect figure of 30,000 - and
 * Very similar mention of Professor Paul H. Lewis in edit summary here, , and here
 * Similar mention of copying info from Dirty War Wikipedia article here and
 * Similar use of the word "source" in edit summaries, , , , , , , , and here
 * Interaction on the talk page of a common editor (who is not suspected of any wrong doing as far as I can tell) - see discussions from multiple of the new accounts on User talk:Kintetsubuffalo here, , , , , and

As with User:TimSala's other socks they seem to be a part of an attempt to avoid scrutiny for edits in (at times) controversial fields by masking their identity through the use of multiple "throw away" accounts. Lastly, given that we seem to have turned up more accounts I'd bet money on there being others but this is what I've found so far. Is there some way of checking for other "sleeper" accounts through the CheckUser tool perhaps? Anotherclown (talk) 12:24, 15 May 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

 * All accounts are stale. Most of them very stale. CheckUser is of no help here.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Checkuser is of no value here. Most of these accounts stopped editing several years ago, and the extent of their editing is quite limited. I am going to close this outright - admins don't really have good justification to block accounts that have been completely inactive for years (and in particular have shown no recent inappropriate activity). If one of the accounts is resurrected, it may be worth reviewing. Risker (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
While I'm not optimistic about CU results being helpful in mutual confirmation, behavior lines up perfectly: both the dormant and active  are active editors in military history, prominently on the article Argentine ground forces in the Falklands War ( also briefly showed up at one point). Like known TimSala sock, both Vanberkel and Sanguichdelsur have added high-volume consecutive edits to the article using template-less references, primary sources, and generally inconsistent citations (see D's edits, V's edits, and S's edits on the ground forces article). A quick editor interaction review with the three new accounts and a couple known TimSala socks captures V and S also overlapping with on Battle of Goose Green, Battle of Mount Tumbledown, and Mario Benjamín Menéndez; Dancesthewaltz also shows up in consistent style on Goose Green and heavily overlaps with V and S on Battle of Mount Longdon.

While I think the behavioral evidence is more than sufficient to demonstrate a link between Vanberkel and Sanguichdelsur, the overlap with TimSala could be mistaken as natural overlap in the sector of modern military history. However, some confirmed TimSala socks seemed devoted almost exclusively to Argentine military matters: see 's focus on the Argentine Navy; the unconfirmed but potential socks on the Conquest of the Desert and Argentine general Bussi and  on People's Revolutionary Army (Argentina). I'm more than thoroughly convinced this is a longterm sockmaster who has managed to avoid recent detection by editing in a relatively unmonitored space. Requesting the CU primarily to catch potential sleepers, as dormant backup socks seem to be an MO here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Pbritti (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note - The following are diffs on mostly Argentine military articles to demonstrate similar referencing styles:


 * Confirmed: TimSala, EmilioSnell
 * New: Vanberkel, Sanguichdelsur
 * I can provide more evidence as requested. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Besides the behavior evidence, Sanguichdelsur just admitted to being in Marrickville, Sydney. Sydney was the original IP location that tipped off the first TimSala investigation. The editor has inadvertently admitted to being the sock master by nature of affirming their location. Behavioral evidence should cover the rest. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Gentlemen I live in a boarding house located in Marrickville, Sydney, in other words there are many Latin American students taking up temporary residence here, primarily from Brazil, Argentina and Colombia. I also notice many Latin Americans, including Chileans have an interest in the Falklands conflict as the comments in the various You Tube uploads show in where Argentine veterans appear. I can confirm the address If you like and provide photo id if required. Sanguichdelsur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanguichdelsur (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There's really nothing for CU to do here. All of these accounts except for one are stale.  And given that the last reported socks for this master were 8 years ago, I don't see that there's any justification to run a check in the hopes of finding sleepers.  If the active account is being disruptive, they should be blocked for whatever they're doing.  If not, then chasing socks doesn't seem useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)