Trichome

thcscience_admin
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sumerophile}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.


Sumerophile (8th case)[edit]

  • Same tendentious editor, editing the same articles. Here is an example[1]
  • Note that his IP range was blocked. See 7th case. VartanM (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's both moved to another range, and is creating accounts elsewhere. I'll see what I can do but this one is  Confirmed - Alison ❤ 05:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the inevitable sock parade:
  1. Historicpastime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. IansAwesomePizza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Listclerk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Alison ❤ 05:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All blocked and tagged. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sumerophile (7th case)[edit]

Indef blocked user, with a long history of evading his block. The Near East fetish is the giveaway. For more info see the previous 6 cases. VartanM (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In case someone asks for diffs again, i'll only compare this one with the last confirmed sock. As soon as the last one got banned this one started editing the exact same pages (IansAwesomePizza is the last banned sock): [2], [3], [4], [5] etc.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed - the following as socks of Sumerophile:
  1. Wynkenblynkennod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Categorystuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Atisketatasket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Wroteeggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Thewildblueyonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. IansAwesomePizza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Yearssixty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  9. Doingthetasksthatneedtogetdone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  10. Opuntiahumifusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  11. Bonnieovertheocean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  12. ANEfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  13. ResponsibleEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  14. DatWaskallyWabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  15. Nonnationalistarchaeology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  16. Mightymousesavestheday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  17. NonNationalistEditorMustBeASockpuppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  18. Flyingsaucerjim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
information Note: - due to the extensive sockpuppeteering, I'm suggesting that the following range may be softblocked, AO/ACB: 144.92.0.0/16. There should be minimum collateral damage if softblocked. As it happens, there is very little behind here other than Sumerophile, whose socks are easily into the dozens and dozens. Releasing the IP info per policy due to the extensive nature of the abuse here. There is also another, related range, but this doesn't warrant blocking at this time - Alison ❤ 05:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Confirmed accounts indef blocked, range softblocked for one month. Tiptoety talk 05:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm at a large public university in the USA and was trying to edit an article on something totally unrelated to ancient Near Eastern history (about the Pen-tailed Treeshrew) when I found out about the IP address range block. I panicked temporarily because I'm not familiar with the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia and thought it meant that this Sumerophile person had been using my computer. I understand the purpose of the block is to prevent vandalism, but is there a better way for you guys to filter him/her/it out without affecting other people at our university? Thank you for your time, I do appreciate that it's people like you who keep Wikipedia from getting messy. Xenobiologista (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm really sorry about having to do that, but basically every account on the aforementioned university's range belongs to the blocked editor. What we've done is softblocked the range, which means that existing accounts will be able to edit unhindered but 1) anon accounts are not permitted and 2) new accounts can not be created (the unblock mailing list can handle account creation requests). It's a nuisance and I apologize for that but there's little we can do - Alison ❤ 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerophile (6th case)[edit]

Perma-blocked user, I have ignored this obvious sock until now, but it is once again beginning to edit war. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What information do you need? The contributions should give it away (See the first 5 cases below). The original account, Sumerophile, was perma-blocked, for repeatedly evading his blocks for persistent edit warring. Soon after that, more socks started appearing and continuing to edit war, in the same topics. This one appeared on June 1, shortly after the last of these was blocked. I have had better things to do than spend all my time reporting these endless socks, but now that it has begun more aggressively revert-warring again, it's time to shut it down, since perma-banned users aren't supposed to be evading their blocks at all anyway. I am fully confident that this will prove to be the same user from the same location as the below (Wisconsin), if a check is performed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Additional information needed "Banned user, trust me" is insufficient for a user check. Minimum required information includes at least some of the articles involved and some diffs of the new user and of Sumerophile or an earlier confirmed sock showing the similarity of content edits and behavior. Yes, I could check this all myself. But I have answered about 20 RFCUs this week, and if I had to do all my own investigation on all of them, I never would have had the time to do them all. Thatcher 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: all 3 blocked indef. -- lucasbfr talk 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerophile (FIFTH case)[edit]

I have no doubt that Categorystuff is Sumerophile, user shows all typical Modi Operandi of edit warring, blanking out reliable references simply because his / her POV is that they are wrong and should not be mentioned, repeatedly, with no regard to 3RR policy; totally reconfiguring articles in Ancient Near East subjects without any regard whatsoever to what any other editors may think of the reconfigurations, etc. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Categorystuff one month as a suspected sock puppet of Sumerophile on the above evidence, and from past experience with Sumerophile. Atisketatasket doesn't have enough contributions yet to know one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Not long after you blocked Categorystuff, Atisketatasket joined in on the very same edit-war, though... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should surely have enough now, he has been spending much of the day going through all the same articles and doing them "his way"... Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked Atisketatasket due to the pattern of new contributions since we talked last. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerophile (FOURTH case)[edit]

The 3rd case is still not even closed, and already we have a new sock wreaking havoc on all the ANE articles, creating new templates to duplicate Template:Notable Rulers of Sumer (for an explanation, see the history for that template) and pasting them all over the place without discussion..... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, also Assumethebest (talk · contribs). Thatcher 23:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above accounts are now blocked and are tagged as socks of Sumerophile. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerophile (third case)[edit]

User:Sumerophile has now been permanently banned for block evasion, but the disruptive edit-warring by obvious sockpuppets continues at Hattians... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note the IPs belong to a university network. Several of us have edited these pages in support of "Sumerophile's" efforts. Nicklausse is not Sumerophile and I am neither. None of these accounts should have been blocked for attempting to edit out nationalist bias. As much as I would like to undo "Til Eulenspiegel's" latest reversal in Hattians, I fear my main account would be banned if I do. Yearssixty (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is certainly very interesting that all of you at that University, also share the same "signature pattern" that makes me suspect you of being Sumerophile in the first place, namely: 1) Repeatedly placing "portal" boxes at the top of many articles on Ancient history (note: the page on portals says these should go at the talkpage or at the bottom, not clutter the top) 2) Deleting referenced information only because you disagree with the published author, and think yourself (yourselves?) more of an expert with better and more "original" ideas than the published author 3) Refusing to engage in discussion or respond to polite requests to explain your decisions, and usually preferring to edit war past 3RR over petty "cosmetic" changes that nobody but you likes 4) Always popping up with these newly created, single purpose accounts; in short, a sock-puppet working to exactly the same ends as the banned user. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of us edit the same way.
Far better not to put bogus "facts" in the articles, which get deleted because they are bogus and/or the sources are quoted inaccurately. I searched Caucasian and Caucasus in this book on books.google.com and cannot find this statement.
For the edit-warring in Hattians, which this request is really all about, the problem is that your source does not say what you quote him saying, and the statement is suspect to begin with. I'm not sure where you will find any source assigning the Hattic language to a "Northwest Caucasian" language family. This is expressed twice on the discussion page. You are the one not engaging in discussion and 3RR is not a polite request. As for what you call "cosmetic" changes, having the portal on the page allows the recent changes to the page to be viewed from the portal. Removing the portal is a way to hide what you are doing.
Bogus information is what gets more people involved, all doing the same thing - removing it. Yearssixty (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, all of the "more people involved" just happen to be at the same University? For pity's sake, Sumerophile, did you even read the article Hattic language? There, you will find no fewer than five referenced and published sources, all attesting to the same thing you want removed from Hattians article about their language -- including one entitled, appropriately enough, "On the Relationship of Hattic to the Northwest Caucasian Languages". Not that this would be the correct place to discuss it, anyway. Being disruptive only for disruption's sake (or so it seems) or else being utterly inflexible and impossible for other editors to work with, is very probably what got you banned, once enough editors got fed up with it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I had not read the Hattic language article until now. I see four Russian language sources and what appears to be a high school encyclopedia. And you just added another assertion with no sources. Yearssixty (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any usage of socks by Sumerophile represents block evasion. Can anyone comment on the idea of blocking any IPs, based at University of Wisconsin, who persist in adding portals to the top of articles? This pattern is unlikely to be matched by any good-faith editors who are not Sumerophile. Portals should go at the bottom. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont't think too many people know this - some people even say portals go on talk pages...
Editors who try to maintain the historical integrity of these articles are not bad-faith editors. Twinkeltwinklelittlestar (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkeltwinklelittlestar account was created just on May 10th, but he/she really reverts as an old user not a newbie and is interested in the same topics as Sumerophile (at Urartu he reverts the same text). Andranikpasha (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andranikpasha reverted another editor on the Urartu page, whose work I restored. It turns out that was probably unnecessary because he had already been reported by a third editor. [6] Maybe this means we're getting more serious editors in the ancient Near East. These witchhunts over content disputes are what drives good editors out and accounts for the nationalist rewriting of so many articles, like Urartu. Twinkeltwinklelittlestar (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted code letter provided. Mww113 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed - the following as socks of Sumerophile :
  1. Twinkeltwinklelittlestar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Twinketwinklelittlestar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. AnactuallyseriouseditorinANE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Validboats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Portaltemplates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Portaltemplatemakeraccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Kug-Bau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Nicklausse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - yes, confirmed this time
Given the level of socking and disruption here, the IP addresses are also  Confirmed, per policy - Alison ❤ 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "disruption" on our parts here - unless dealing with nationalism (i.e. Andranikpasha) or fringe theories (i.e. Til Eulenspiegel's sources) count as such at Wikipedia. The ancient Near East is full of this - presumeably being considered the cradle of civilization attracts these kind of things - and any serious editor editing in this field is going to come across a lot of this. Twinkeltwinklelittlestar (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above registered accounts are now indef blocked. 144.92.152.82 (talk · contribs) and 144.92.95.110 (talk · contribs) have each been blocked one year. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sumerophile (second case)[edit]

Block evasions and continued disruptions... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed that Nicklausse2 is Nicklausse.
  •  Confirmed that Sumerophile is Sumeroduo, also ANEeditor (talk · contribs).
  • Blueberrybuttermilkpancakes is  Likely. Thatcher 15:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All named accounts appear to be blocked. Rudget (Help?) 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerophile[edit]

Nairi article is just the tip of an iceberg. The same amount of edit warring continued on Urartu andHayasa-Azzi. I can only describe this user as being at the opposite end of the spectrum from User:Ararat arev. He has been edit warring to remove templates, categories, even wikiproject:Armenia tags from talkpages. VartanM (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is unlikely. Nicklausse, I'm fairly sure, is a person distinct to Sumerophile (there's a YouTube contributor of the same username and it's likely this is the same chap). As for the rest? Maybe. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The country of origin in the youtube account explain a lot of things, Thanks. VartanM (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is confirmed, an indef ban should be imposed immediately because of all the disruption caused.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ararat arev was indef banned for the same exact reason (evading his block) VartanM (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an effort on the part of a few nationalist editors, including a banned user who uses numerous aliases, who would like to rewrite history and archaeology, to hound out serious editors concerned about pesky little things like facts. I do have a YouTube account, but the username is not exactly the same as this one - I am not Turkish. Nor Armenian, nor Irani, not Iraqi, nor Arab, nor Jewish, nor Muslim. This is not to say that an editor who does belong to one or more of these groups, including Armenian, cannot edit objectively and factually. Nicklausse (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely that Sumerophile (talk · contribs) is Nicklausse (talk · contribs), or at the very least are well known to each other as they share the same IP addresses over two different ranges.
Artene50 (talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated to both of these - Alison ❤ 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Sumerophile

Leave a Reply