Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuscumbia/Archive

12 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

I suspect Tuscumbia is Twilight Chill's or Twilight Chill is Tuscumbia's sock. Especially Twilight Chill had his sock for which his that account was blocked. They both add anti-Armenian information to the articles. They both revert my edits, first Twilight Chill than Tuscumbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aram-van (talk • contribs) 07:31, January 12, 2011

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

 * Do you have any specific evidence to support your claims? Nakon  09:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No.Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this as a bad faith report. Pretty sure this was just created as a response to the SPI case that Tuscumbia created about the OP. Without any actual evidence, I see no reason to continue. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

02 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

I am filing this report on the basis that a "new" editor has cropped up Wikipedia and begun to edit articles of contentious matter in the area of Armenia, Azerbaijan and especially the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. My suspicions have led me to believe that the new editor is possibly the sock of editor Tuscumbia, who just last month was topic-banned from editing these articles for a period lasting six months. He has not edited since February 24 and I find it rather very strange that now a new editor, Dighapet, would come and actively edit these articles with such skill and precision. He created a new article out of scratch, Baker Rules, demonstrating an excellent knowledge in how to list sources, how to write a lead and what to include and exclude from it, etc. He also appears to have a very good grasp of English and Russian, two languages which Tuscumbia showed proficiency in and from he would draw sources from. Interestingly enough, two of the four articles he listed on the "See Also" section were relatively obscure articles that Tuscumbia himself had written. Then, just today, he came out of the blue and reverted me, without discussion, on an article which he was deeply intimate with just two months back.

It seems to make sense that an editor who has been barred from editing the same articles he showed the most interest in would make a return under another name. There appear to be far too many fishy coincidences to think that this is simply a user who has observed Wikipedia for a long time without editing and simply applied what he learned. This new account appears to be too experienced for a new editor. I apologize for any procedural mistakes I may have made in filing this report. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, for one, his interests, however limited for the moment, seem to focus on the same articles that Tuscumbia himself was busy editing, namely the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the notable figures, the battles, the massacres, foreign diplomacy figures, the cease fire agreements and negotiations which characterized it. The User Compared Report in this regard is very telling since it shows that this new account has edited the very same articles which Tuscumbia at one time or another edited (Khojaly Massacre, Azerbaijan Armed Forces, Sumgait Pogrom, Maraga Massacre, the Fuzuli Rayon, Military history of Azerbaijan, etc.).


 * The Baker Rules article is also very telling, and not only in the way the new account has adroitly crafted such a sharp-looking page, without any coding errors or missing bolding or incomplete source information. Even the manner in which the Reference and See Also sections are structured are similar to the two other articles Tuscumbia created, the Zheleznovodsk Communiqué and Tehran Communiqué. While the Baker Rules isn't much to go by, the somewhat awkward English grammar used generally resembles Tuscumbia's (and which can be gleaned from the aforementioned articles he created).


 * While I originally thought that another editor, Brandmeister, aka Twilight Chill, could have been behind this account, since he too would have an incentive to edit these articles because he was topic-banned from this area for one year, I excluded him from this report because of too many glaring dissimilarities. Twilight Chill's English grammar is perfect and his edits lacks awkward idiosyncrasies and he edits many articles outside of the area of Nagorno-Karabakh or Armenia or Azerbaijan. In addition to the evidence I listed above, Tuscumbia seems to be the most likely editor behind this account because of lack recent activity and his much belabored attempt to appeal and have his topic-ban lifted. I remember when I began editing articles and I recall how many times I stumbled went it come to editing articles in the beginning months - it was a learning process and was an experience most newbies had to go through until they got the hang of it. I find it very hard to believe that a new editor can create such a near flawless article, wikilinks, citations, sections, categories, lead and all, and not have some prior experience to editing here. The evidence here seems to point Tuscumbia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In light of my report, it might also be instructive to compare Dighapet's polished new article with his latest response below, which mangles the grammar and goes to what really look like contrived lengths to misspell both my name and Fedayee's. Something just doesn't add up here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I would like to note that Dighapet's edit summaries contain a couple of differences, such as in new articles (Tuscumbia, unlike Dighapet, doesn't write "New!" when creating them and generally uses longer summaries in disputable edits). Btw thanks for language acknowledgment, Marshal, although I regained Brandmeister again and am no longer Twilight Chill :) Brand meister  t   10:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand this is a claim report that I am the other user. I actually have nothing to say about comparisons. The sole thing I can say about what Armenian editor writing the report is that I created page Baker Rules on basis of if page Prague Process and Tehran Communique created by two other users. I used sources available online and from LOB. You can check users it's your wish. If you have questions ask me. 15:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dighapet (talk • contribs)

It's clear that this "new user" is not a new user just by checking his contributions. It's a throw away account, see this here, reverted an edit made a week earlier which means he knew something was removed from the article. See here too, he did not find the info to be inaccurate to fix it, he actually knew the info was changed to revert it. See also this POV about Lidice here. Check the talkpage here, specifically the section Twinned city of Lidice started by none other than Tuscumbia!

So this new account is either Tuscumbia directly or is meatpuppting for him (don't forget that there are at least 26 different individuals who can meatpuppet, according to the Russian mailing list, and the discovery of the English one to add to that). This user is directly resuming the conflicts Tuscumbia has started himself.

Confirmation: Don't believe me? Check the common denominator of all those reverts from this new account, it is this IP. This confirms that Dighapet was primary created to revert that IP. Check here, this is one example where the IP reverts Tuscumbia and after which that info will be reinsterted by Dighapet here. I don't think I need to mentiion that nearly all of the user's edits were reverts. The only article created shows a deep knowledge, not to mention that 2 out of 4 referred articles were created by Tuscumbia. - Fedayee (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but this analysis of my activity is no sense making talking. I know you wanna get rid of Azeri accounts and include as many users that you can, but it's your wishful thinking. I wanna apologize to Brandmeister and Tuscumbia for involving their names in this senseles reporting by MBagramyan and Fedayeen, but it was not my fault. I only wanted to use their articles as new base for mine. Yea, I have good knowledge of Karabagh conflict and you wanna rid Wikipedia of anyone with good knowledge of the problem. Fedayeen, look at your own edit history. All you did do is reverts and inclusion of POV texts. 21:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dighapet (talk • contribs)


 * I'm glad that you know terminology such as POV which you have used to justify reverts. Also of importance is how the level of English you use in the article you have created contrasts with what you show us here. At least we would surely not expect someone creating such an article to write something like: is no sense making talking. - Fedayee (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What? Yea I do know the Wikipedia terminology, yea, my English is not great because not my native buy what does it have to do with created article? Article was created by me after I wrote the text, edited in Word and then edited in Wikipedia by looking in Preview. Editing grammar in Word makes the text perfect. It's amazing what Microsoft Office can do to help with grammar, spelling and so on. Any other questions? Dighapet (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Marshall, but this is the second time you are involved in false accusations against me. My edits stopped on February 24 because I am a human being who likes to take vacations every now and then. From my contributions history, which I am sure you track, you can see that I create and expand dozens of articles every week. So, if I stopped editing for a while that means that I am either on vacation, sick or dead. If I decide to leave Wikipedia, I'll be sure to make a note on my user page. If some unknown, new or suspicious user pops up, it shouldn't mean it is me. I have no sock- or meatpuppets, obviously because I myself report every sockpuppet I see based on evidence. By the way, I might be gone for a few days again. So, if you see someone new, please file another SPI :)) Just kidding. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 15:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre, any admin can go ahead and check all they want. I have nothing to do with User:Dighapet and can't help prevent or stop his edits. Whether suspicious or not, it could even be someone trying to implicate me by using, linking to or sourcing the articles I created or expanded. I am aware a number of users are desperately trying to prolong my topic ban or get me blocked. Look at this user, for example who tries very hard to get me blocked by attempting to relate the articles I have been creating and expanding during my topic ban. (Other countries, provinces, oblasts in South Caucasus are not immediately related to AA2 as much as South Caucasus can't be related to cases in Greater Caucasus, Greater Caucasus can't be related to all areas of former Soviet Union and former Soviet Union can't be related to the rest of the world). So, this Dighapet account might as well be some sock- or meatpuppet used to get me banned. As I already mentioned above, I know quite well what sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are since I have filed numerous reports to get puppeteers blocked, but with substantial evidence.  Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

These are a lot of bad faith assumptions. Besides, the reason it was brought to Sandstein's talkpage was because the original AA2 restrictions contained not only Armenia and Azerbaijan but the region and some of the articles you have been editing include controversial figures that were involved in the conflicts in the Caucasus. That's why I requested a clarification. No one is here to get you and it is for this very same battleground mentality for which you were topic banned. Regarding the accusions that this new account might have been created to accuse you, there is a little problem with that: how did this new account know you would be on vacation? He appeared right after you had left for that vacation of yours (except for two edits you have made afterwards). What I note here is that a new account just appeared while you are on vacation to continue on various disputes, including those that you have initiated such as Litice. But I very much doubt that a CU will confirm anything, with two dozens of users communicating off-Wiki there are plenty of potential meatpuppets. But obviously this user is not a new user and should be blocked. I still wonder how Brandmeister was aware of this CU request. - Fedayee (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no conspiracy here Tuscumbia. Several of us have now voiced suspicion on how an account could start editing away on these articles like a pro. It takes weeks to get the hang of it and the fact that he just appeared to edit the same obscure, articles you edited only fuels that suspicion. Fedayee, does, however, have a point. The CU probably will be unable to find any real connection between the two and given the history of off-Wiki activity, he just might have a point here in blocking this suspicious user, who obviously is not new and obviously knows his way around the site.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, so now you left Tuscumbia and just me to be blocked, just because you think I should be blocked? On which grounds? Perfect way of getting users accused. Read the clarification above. I created articles on basis of other articles: basis how the introduction was, basis how text and sources must follow and in what order. Is it very hard for you to understand? If it is very hard, tell me again and I'll try once more.

Tuscumbia, I am not any conspiracy person. I am just a new user who started editing by looking at other articles. I again apologize for involving you but your claims are groundless. What you all blame me for has no basis at all. Am just guilty because I started using other articles? What's the problem? When I have time I come and edit. Dighapet (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Poor innocent user, so maybe you could tell us how come you found out about the edit war to remove Sumgait pogrom and add Khojali here. Also it would help if you re-read the evidence I provided above. If you get away without a block, this is going right into the arbtration enforcement page. What about this one? Tuscumbia edit warred about him being Azerbaijani. You obviously are not a new user, the question is that if a CU does not find a link, it's either off-Wiki coordination again, as evidenced from both the English and Russian mailing list, or that you are posting from another location to escape a check. - Fedayee (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I could tell you how I saw edits in Khojaly Massacre article as this and removed Sumgait pogroms. I did that edit on February 24 a day before the anniversary of massacre. Do you know how many people look at that article one day, two days, on the day and few days after that massacre? Guess! And then yes, I added Khojaly Massacre in other article because it was removed by the same IP person who removed Khojaly Massacre in Sumgait pogrom article:. This one ? What about this one?! I am originally from Fizuli. In this edit I made corrected edits to name of capital and added that the city was named after Azerbaijani poet Fizuli. Do you think, any of 9 million Azeris believe he’s not Azeri? Any Azeri user fixing that to correct he’s Azeri will be reported? You are making everybody laugh! What coordination? What report? What arbitrage? Go complain anywhere you want to complain. It’s not my fault two persons find my edited text controversial. Look at those pages I did edits in. They all have often debates and disagreements. All you make is complain. Look at your own contribution history. All you have made is complain about new users when you don’t even do edits yourself. Dighapet (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Can you give some evidence as to why you think this is Tuscumbia, and not one of any other number of possible accounts? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we going to move forward with this case? I see this question has been answered above. And I do agree that something is suspicious, whether Tuscumbia or not. If it is Tuscumbia, then I will be quite disappointed, as he knows better than to break the rules for the sake of the outcome (ends justify the means sort of thinking). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The technical data is . TN X Man  20:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not convinced by the evidence - and the CU didn't help with that. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)