Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wddan/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The ip user 87.5.76.109 made a section written in english in this italian Wikipedia talk page discrediting, provoking and attacking me (WP:NPA) as a good motivation for reverting my well-sourced changes (that the sockmaster didn't like) in the main page of the article. This happened after my block in English Wikipedia followed a report by the user Wddan. After a revert, the ip user 95.236.118.131 reverted again the page insulting me. He also obstinately continued the edit-war in the italian versions of the articles, imposing the sources that didn't reach consensous in this talk page. A further confirm that the sockmaster is the user Wddan is that he made a section in this talk page trying to construe the unreliablity of the source I used, that is generally accepted in Wikipedia as a reliable source. I also want to point out that both of the IP users linked my Wikipedia block page, both wrote in English in Italian Wikipedia, and both discredited and attacked me. Both ip users showed the same behaviour of their sockmaster, that quickly reverts everything doesn't like. I don't think it's a fair use of multi-accounts and I see this situation as a second reproach against me after it hasn't gained consensous(the first one being the reverts to his preferred version of the pages where he didn't have consensous, right after my ban), even though it has managed to block me for the 3RR. -- FrankCesco26 (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the defense written below, with which I present the evidence that I didn't do anything against Wikipedia rules and this report is totally abusive, I, user Wddan, would rather propose to investigate whether the following IP is the same as FrankCesco26:


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

That IP modified the lede of the article Religion in Sweden (see); I suspected that he was FrabkCesco26 since his edits were in the same vein as FrankCesco26's ones and came just after his September block was over. FrankCesco26 denied that he was the same person behind 5.168.198.156 but nonetheless restored the IP's edits after they were reverted, therefore concocting the semblance of a consensus.--Wddan (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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

There is no need of a check-user since I have no reason to hide that those IPs are mine, and I didn't do anything that goes against Wikipedia rules using them. There is no rule to establish that a user must edit logged-in in all languages versions of Wikipedia. Moreover, with those edits I did not insult FrankCesco26 (the object of all my four reverts is: rv troublemaker who was blocked on English Wikipedia for exactly the same reasons; see 1, 2, 3, 4), I just demonstrated to Italian readers how he was moving his activities on Italian Wikipedia after having been blocked here on English Wikipedia by admin, after having been reported by me. With his edits on Italian Wikipedia he was reproducing precisely the behavioural pattern which led to his block here. For instance, in the case of "Religione in Italia" he completely erased a source replacing it with the source he prefers and unduly mixing it with another source which is utterly incompatible. He attempted to impose the very same edits here on English Wikipedia, "Religion in Italy", last June; his bad-faith motivations were debunked by user (read discussion) and he was blocked by admin  after having been reported by user, who also witnessed his bad behaviour.
 * User Wddan's self-defense

It is, indeed, this hostile report against me that constitutes a problematic behaviour.--Wddan (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, you are moved by a strong WP:POV that is not neutral and you see problematic whoever doesn't think like you. You try to impose whatever you like using admin reports, hasty reverts and also insults and menaces. Using other accounts to insult and discredit one user making a whole section in the talk page with the only purpose to take a revenge against me because I removed your souced using consensous; well it's not fair and need to be reported. Let the admin decide if a check-user is needed or not.


 * By the way, I wasn't blocked for my behaviour, but for the 3RR; admin was impartial. Also, if we have to count how many sources have been completely removed, you win having removed more than 20 sources following my block, putting the version you like
 * In this section you should defend yourself against claim, and not attack the one who has requested a check-user, though.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You were blocked two times precisely for all the things that you are now falsely attributing to me.--Wddan (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "falsely" is a your opinion. As far I'm concerned, I didn't use other accounts only with the purpose to insult and discredit you.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's funny that you are defending yourself opening an other case concerning an IP user that isn't mine. In your prospective, what does the IP user did against the rules (I mean, he hasn't insulted, discredited, reverted, etc..), and what is your evidence? I see that the IP user didn't make any consensous, and I see this move as a vain try to block me again, in order to remove the sources you don't like in that article. Creating a new section under this article with no logical motivations will not divert the work of the administrators, supposing that they take this seriously. Also, I didn't restore the edits of the IP user. --FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your ongoing provocative behaviour will very likely lead to another administration notice and cosequent block. The very essence of this entire report is abusive, as written above.--Wddan (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think that it's good to report who use sockpuppets with the goal to insulting, provoking and ridiculing someone . Comment on contributions, not on contributor.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The both of you need to quit it. Closing, as none of these IPs have made edits on the English Wikipedia that would violate WP:ILLEGIT even if they were an editor editing while logged out. Do not make reports on the English Wikipedia about conduct on other language Wikipedias. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)