Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tounom/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Adds copyvio content to article Holy Fire: thus (sockmaster's contribs have been WP:REVDELed.) Edit-wars to keep it in; ignores invitations to discuss; communicates through curt edit summaries. Elizium23 (talk) 06:59, 11 July 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

 * , page semi-protected, copyvio contribs revdeled. ST47 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

They have restored deleted comments by Tounom's socks on Talk:Holy Fire and on Talk:April_18_(Eastern_Orthodox_liturgics), while adding their own 2 cents disparaging Liz. Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 17 July 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

 * . Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Years ago, Religio added a bunch of unsourced stuff about how a pagan coin minter was really prophesying the coming of Jesus or something (which I can't make sense of and I've argued Gnostic interpretations for Green Eggs and Ham for the hell of it). In my eyes, it was the sort of stuff that only the original author would care about. After I removed it, Phanes612 registered just to restore it. Now, if their response had been "oops, forgot the password to that account, and I see your point about sources," that'd be the end of it. But no, Ertobari registered to edit war over the sort of material that makes no sense in a way that only the original author would care about. They've then gone on to restore a talk page discussion about Tounom, but followed in Tounom's footsteps in adding copyrighted material to the Holy Fire article, adding a redlink for Martyr Tunom (comparison), and displaying some sort of grudge against. I think behavioral evidence is plenty enough for even me to go ahead block despite potential arguments of WP:INVOLVED. Hesitant to ask for a CU to find sleepers given how stale Religio will be. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:29, 4 November 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

 * . Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Virtual acronym of blocked user and same obsessive focus on one article 10mmsocket (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2021 (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

 * ✅ to to each other:
 * is technically to the above accounts due to shared ranges..
 * Based on CU logs, these accounts are technically to Ertobari. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagging all as proven socks and closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on CU logs, these accounts are technically to Ertobari. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagging all as proven socks and closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

After Tounom's most recent sockpuppets were blocked (Coinissuer on 25th October for personal attacks and edit warring; Nomtou and Speakfreedontcensor on 29th October as socks of Tounom; Coinissuer was subsequently marked as a sock of Tounom on 31st October), DoesHoly came to Holy Fire to insert content about Tounom. The original content [ed.: by User: Tounom] has now been revdelled as copyvio, but the page history for Holy Fire is suggestive, and Nomtou and Speakfreedontcensor were making the case for content about Tounom on Talk:Holy Fire.Then this morning Deathsema appeared on Phanes (coin issuer), adding claims about the translation of the word "sema" sourced to wikipedia, which was part of the text that Coinissuer had previously added and later editwarred over. (Also, behaviourly DoesHoly, like Coinissuer, is unable to make a single edit when 14 will do, and neither appears to have any ability to use edit summaries. Both features could  just be normal new user incompetence, but it's suggestive...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Today, a new account has reinstated the mis-spelling and strange translation as "tomb" that  inserted in Coin in January 2021. (Their theory seems to be that the inscription on the coin is a very early prophecy that the Virgin Mary will be buried at Ephesus, or of the death of Jesus. This requires mis-spelling and odd translation.) NebY (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They've also edited at electrum (diff), once again adding the kind of WP:SYNTH to tie an archaic coin to the birth of Jesus that Coinissuer was edit warring over. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
 
 * - agree these look like obvious socks (Deathsema is already blocked and tagged). There are some other ones in the history of Phanes (coin issuer):
 * Considering how rapidly they seem to be creating accounts, I think a sleeper check would be worthwhile. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering how rapidly they seem to be creating accounts, I think a sleeper check would be worthwhile. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering how rapidly they seem to be creating accounts, I think a sleeper check would be worthwhile. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @C.Fred you blocked these as socks, but there's no indication who they're socks of. I'm assuming from context that you believed them to be Tounom socks? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Behaviour definitely links them to Coinissuer; if they're linked back to Tounom, then the master is Tounom. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Deathsema is and DoesHoly is  to the bunch from 29 October 2021
 * Xicsisi and Againstabsurd are to Deathsema
 * I don't have anything that traces any of these directly to Tounom; .  I request that the clerk who picks this up please make sure that everybody is tagged properly; it'll make future investigations less of an archeology expedition. -- RoySmith (talk).   14:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Tagged the untagged accounts as suspected to Tounom based on pushing the same fringe content (see Sockpuppet_investigations/Tounom/Archive, etc.). Closing. Spicy (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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

All this after I ran into Heretre, and then Freprere ran into me. 1-4 were found on the one range, the Heretre range, 5- 15 on the closely related Freprere range. I listed them all, including duplicates and already blocked account (I saw and others were on the case), and in these two groups, for the sake of redundancy. Some of them are already tagged; for some I changed the existing "suspected" tag to "confirmed". Drmies (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where were we? As I was filing this, User:Gagawiza showed up (now blocked, not tagged), and they're confirmed with User:Coinissuer. It's a party! Drmies (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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


 * A few minutes after Drmies finished dealing with, turned up; like Gagawiza and , their contributions are apparently solely devoted to blindly reverting my edits (in one case, very near to a version by Coinissuer , and including when they have to revert several edits to find the only one I believe I have ever made on that page.  They've already been blocked by , but it may be worth recording here too? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Did you mean to file this at Sockpuppet investigations/Tounom? --Blablubbs (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Blablubbs, probably... I can't move this--thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. :) I also tagged the rest as confirmed – please let me know if that's overstating the CU data and I'll drop the tags down to proven. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Blablubbs--DoesHoly and Deathsema were likely and highly likely, according to, to the set from October 29, which included Speakfree. These are perfect matches to them. Does that help? (BTW Elastic was blocked on technical grounds--but they may be the odd one out.) Drmies (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
A new editor immediately introducing unsourced claims to Phanes, which is almost identical to previous text introduced by known socks: Lordilor's edit; strikedaemons; iamofthelion. Previous socks have exhibited this same behaviour of coming back after an interval to reintroduce uncited nonsense that they were blocked over before (compare e.g. Sockpuppet investigations/Tounom/Archive). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Added Lyhorefi: same behaviour on Holy Fire. Lyhorefi: ; previous socks:, , , , . Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * +Crotospari: after Lyhorefi was blocked and reverted by, reinstates the same text with an edit summary about religious gangs (for more on their obsession with religious gangs, see this edit from Coinissuer, another known Tounom sock). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2022 (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 behavioural evidence is clear, but please check for sleepers given the history. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The religious gang(bang) comments, the Holy Fire obsession...if it's not a sockpuppet of Tounom, it's somebody so closely emulating their behaviour that there's no way they wanted a long tenure on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I edit-conflicted with on this (I guess you didn't see the "in process" status?).  Here's what I originally wrote:

SPI page edit failed! Comment was: *Lordirlor, Lyhorefi, and Crotospari are all ✅ to each other. Based on some CU log data, I'll call them to Tounom and there's enough behavioral clues that I can see to justify blocking as proven. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw the status but wasn't sure how long the process would take. :) —C.Fred (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
New user whose sole purpose is apparently to revert my edits without explanation. The only user I have ever been in a serious Wikipedia dispute with is Tounom and their various socks, and previous socks (e.g. Heretre and Gagawiza) have exhibited the same behaviour. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2022 (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

 * A quick check tells me that this account is to the blocked sock . Given the editing history, I am persuaded. Blocking, closing.   Girth Summit  (blether)  11:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
More original research claiming that the word sema on the Phanes coins ought be translated as "tomb", referencing the Phrasikleia kore. Compare e.g. this edit by blocked tounom sock. This obscure article hasn't been edited since the 2021, when there was a burst of activity triggered by Tounom's last set of socks, so the chances of an unrelated new editor arriving to repeat the same obsessions seems incredibly low... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2023 (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

 * , closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Another obvious sock. Username again referencing their obsession with the word sema; contributions solely to Phanes coins reinserting more unsupported content about that word's meaning plus reverting a contribution by, who had reverted their last sock. Previous socks such as have exhibited this behaviour of revenge reverts against people who have cleaned up after Tounom socks. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: now blocked by as WP:NOTHERE; their most recent edit summaries complaining about a "clan of satanists that control specific articles on wikipedia" is reminiscent of previous socks' obsessions with a supposed "religious gang" preventing them from spreading the Good Word (cf. Sockpuppet investigations/Tounom/Archive).

Comments by other users

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

There's yet another account that's shown up,, who hasn't added this specific content but is adding unsourced material about other uses of the word sema. It also follows the same pattern of naming the sock after whatever thing it's adding (in this case the "sema of Mitralalis"). Most likely a sock. I'll request page protection as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And another one, continuing a series of edits against “satanists” .—Ermenrich (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, tagged, semi'd Pontius Pilate for a bit to appease the Satanist cabal. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)