Trichome

thcscience_admin


Architect 134

Architect 134 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

27 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Uncovered socks while looking into an unblock request. See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

21 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Found while processing an unblock request. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Seems likely to be an LTA, created within seconds of Anndrewa who is imitating Andrewa and now Apokyrltaros imitating Apokryltaros and copied each of the respective users user pages. Requesting CU to verify and identify sleepers. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I've also added Am0ritas, as an impersonation of an admin that also attempted to edit their userpage and also starts with "a". We seem to be getting a lot of impersonations today, so worth the look. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

24 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Noticed two new users edit-warring on Germania (city) ([1] [2]); a closer look at Opelcleat's contribs led me to discover yet another account tag-teaming account ([3] [4]) and from there, the apparent master (?) ([5] [6]) Sro23 (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

04 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Same edits on the same pages with very similar comments:

@Surtsicna:, do you think they are identical? Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's quite clear the accounts belong to the same person. Surtsicna (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action -  Looks like a duck to me. Please block the master account for a few days, and the sock indefinitely. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done. I've blocked the sockpuppet account indefinitely, and the master for 1 week. Mz7 (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The same edits on the same articles with similar edit summaries:

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I believe sockpuppet investigation of Borsoka and Surtsicna is also appropriate. They have similar edit history and have been tag teaming to avoid 3RR on the same articles Borsoka linked to. Tedesci (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swetonius, if you think we are sockpuppets, you should initiate a formal investigation. However, we are not sockpuppets and your behaviour evidence that you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and you should be banned from our community. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Blocked and pages protected. Closing — MusikAnimal talk 02:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the continued deceptive behavior, I've also extended the master's block to indefinite. Mz7 (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


05 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The new editor appeared hours after Swetoniusz's second sock puppet was banned. He edits articles about Polish royalty or persons related to Polish royals ([30]) which is Swetoniusz's main area of interest ([31]). Although he is allegedly a new editor, he can easily use templates ([32]). Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Given the overlap, particularly on Elizabeth of Bosnia and its talk page, I agree that this should be checked. Mz7 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll note, however, that the behavior is slightly different in this case. The previous two accounts edited immediately after they were created in order to carry on a specific content dispute. However, this account was created and remained dormant for several hours before editing pages in the general topic area, though not directly related to the content dispute. It's more possible it's a coincidence in this than the previous cases, and that's why I think checkuser would be beneficial here. Mz7 (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Likely, blocked and tagged User:Galatides. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


06 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Slidecaph is a new editor who repeats the edits of Swetoniusz ([33]) and of Swetoniusz's former sock ([34]). Kirovsided is an other new editor who can realize that Slidecaph is Swetoniusz's new sock ([35], [36]). Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • User:Slidecaph received a sock warning on their talk page at 04:06 on 6 April. If they still continue with the usual Swetoniusz behavior after that time, I think an indef block is warranted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What bothers is me is that the grammar and style of these new accounts are clearly superior to Swetoniusz's. Compare Talk:Elizabeth of Bosnia#My change to Talk:Mary, Queen of Hungary#Why?. Yet they are indisputably interested in the same few articles. Could he be canvassing people to edit on his behalf? Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jarowkci is indisputably a sock of Swetoniusz. If the connection between the above accounts and Jarowkci is clear, as it is stated below, we cannot say that they are not Swetoniusz's socks. Yes, he may have asked his kin or friends to act on his behalf, but this does not change the fact that the above accounts are sockpuppets. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Bywaynoway, Slidecaph and Diazclack are  Technically indistinguishable from each other and  Confirmed to the last blocked sock Jarowkci. Kirovsided is also confirmed to Jarowkci.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this looks like a joe job. The accounts from the most recent SPIs are all related to each other, but appear unrelated to Swetoniusz. This looks to be the same troll who was imitating Manipulateus in order to get them blocked (e.g. Indiemovienovelist, Steadykeel and Brinkmacaw and a laundry list of throw-away vandal accounts). It would be help if another CU could take a look.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is indeed true that this is a separate troll that is trying to frame both Swetoniusz and Manipulateus, I would appreciate it if a brand new SPI page was created which lists all the accounts involved for documentation purposes. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Szlezak suggested an edit ([37]) that Swetoniusz's former sock had also suggested ([38]). Wicznek first restored one of my former remarks about Swetoniusz's sockpuppetry on Swetoniusz's talk page ([39]), then deleted it ([40]). (According to my experiences, Swetoniusz is extremely sensitive and he cannot stand negative remarks.) Wicznek, an allegedly new editor, also granted me a barnstar ([41]). I think he needed the new accounts, because he wants to continue the edit war on Swetoniusz's favorite articles (Jadwiga of Poland, Mary, Queen of Hungary,...) which are now semi-protected. Borsoka (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Borsoka (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

15 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

After I reported User:Beraen Hunter to UAA for impersonation, a new account showed up and did the same to me. Septrillion (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

03 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Persistent additions of "an hero" related content to articles:

  • Master: 1, 2, 3
  • sock 1: 1, 2, 3
  • sock 2: 1, 2
  • sock 3: 1
  • sock 4: 1, 2
  • sock 5: 1

Username and edit behaviors are pretty self-explanatory. Checkuser may identify additional sleeper accounts and/or rangeblocks if applicable. Also note that AnnHero just registered and knows user warning templates, there may be a "true" master behind this (i.e. could be a long-term or returning abuse). -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 03:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I have added more socks that I have encountered before (when I edited as an IP). SemiHypercube (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Everyone I saw appears to be blocked, the oldest account I could find was Such an hero. Leaving for someone else to take another look at a potiental master beyond that. Courcelles (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk declined - all of these April fools are blocked. Unlikely we could link to a master and unlikely they'll keep at it since it's no longer April 1. Closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scratch that, Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - please check these accounts against Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134, based on Truly an hero (talk · contribs). Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is Architect 134. There is some repetitiveness below but some are associated with other cases or not at all. All are  Confirmed. /42 range hardblocked.

21 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Doug Weller talk 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed all blocked, not tagged as per previous socks Doug Weller talk 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Rtc is blocked for edit warring on Placebo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He continues to post on his talk page, but is being ignored there. Up pops Oxenattic Undid revision 846448235 by Alexbrn (talk) casting aspersions on editors adding content you disagree with? - an edit summary strikingly similar to the style of argumentation Rtc has been employing to date. If this is block evasion then it represents a substantial escalation for an editor who has, in my view, been on a path to burnout for a while. I hope it isn't. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 21:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Since Rtc's edit history discloses they are familiar with IT security, one would hope their socks would not be detectable by CU. But the quacking is loud enough: the fact the puppet has been instantly magnetized just to the two articles which are the locus of Rtc's dispute and refers to "yet another example of a few people ganging up on an editor"[42] (one of Rtc's themes) rather gives the game away. Alexbrn (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo just cu-blocked. I'm waiting to see if we find out who the master is. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

27 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Edits on Paul Erdős (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) DVdm (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This stems from the discussion here: Bueller 007 has been adding a template to a large number of articles without any consensus and edit-warring over it (report here, no action at present). I started the WT:WPM discussion, which led to a quick consensus to remove the template, and a number of users pitched in. Newly-created account Boxedberg has made all of its edits to restore the template, with edit summaries in the same charming style (compare [43] and [44]. JBL (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. This is a bad faith report made to win an edit war. I don’t know who Bueller 007 is. Boxedberg (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

01 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Users Anne Heero, Ann HHero, and Anne Gyro have all been making disruptive references to becoming "an hero" and disruptively changing "a" to "an" in articles related to suicide or people who have died by suicide. They have also changed text to "an hero" in reference to suicide. See [45], [46], [47]. As for the two Aspening impersonator accounts, I believe these may be linked due to the time frame involved. At 16:05 UTC today (7/1/2018), Anne Heero was blocked for 48 hours following a personal attack in this diff and disruptive editing. I was the only one who was reverting Anne Heero at this time, and reported them to ANI because of the personal attack. At 16:08, account Aspeninng was created and copied my user page and talk page in an effort to impersonate me. This was caught early by patrols and the account did not make any more disruptive edits before being indeffed. Soon after, account Aspeninng-alt (reference to my legitimate alternate account Aspening-alt) was created, exhibited the same behavior, and was indeffed at 16:19 before making any other edits. Because the two impersonator accounts were quickly indeffed, there wasn't enough time to see what the person behind these accounts planned to do and so the behavioral link is based solely on the time frame. I was using Huggle at the time and reverting other vandals/disruptive editors, so while it's possible the impersonators were linked to Anne Heero, I think a checkuser may need to clarify the situation. Aspening (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I was already checking.  Technically indistinguishable. No other obvious unblocked accounts seen. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my first check, I neglected to check Ann HHero, who is of course  Confirmed. More important, DrPaleontology (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is also  Confirmed and now blocked. Although DrPaleontology was obviously disruptive, the behavioral pattern otherwise is very different. Having now spent some time looking at these accounts, I've come to the conclusion that although there are some specific patterns, there are also many other accounts that have to be the same person based on the technical data (for example, DrPaleontology and Ann HHero were created within seven minutes of each other), but the only pattern that is consistent is the accounts are all disruptive and often revert other users.  Clerk assistance requested: Please move this case to Ann HHero, the oldest account.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


See this diff. Same disruptive additions of "an" where it shouldn't be and "an hero" in reference to suicide. Aspening (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed + Roshamboe (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Same disruptive editing pattern, see here. Suspects now appear to be waiting 20-30 minutes before actually making any edits. Aspening (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I need a chance to breathe.  Confirmed and blocked. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


02 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Another one. See here. Aspening (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Blocked as obvious. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

02 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Adoniosis blocked for edit warring at Battle of Vrbanja Bridge, new account Mazesbacon appears and repeats the behaviour, see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Adoniosis_reported_by_User:Peacemaker67_(Result:_Blocked_24_hours) DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

The suspected sock reverted to the suspected master's version just a few minutes after the latter was blocked for 24 hours for warring. Patent socking. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I requested a CU since the suspected sock has only one edit. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @NeilN:, because the suspected sock has one edit, only CU can verify any connection properly. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

@NeilN: You're aware of this. What do you want to be done here?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: If the new editor had continued reverting I would have blocked as a sock/meat puppet. With one edit, I can't be sure if this is block evasion or another person deciding to continue the dispute. So, CU please. --NeilN talk to me 15:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New account and its first (and only) edit ([48]) is reverting an edit on a page subject to 1RR that Dan was previously warned about here: [49] (<--diffs included). I suspect this new account was made just to revert the edit to avoid 1RR and could possibly be a sockpuppet by Dan. Asking for CheckUser to compare IPs since a single edit by a new account isn't a lot to go off on. I also think it is Dan because he is the only user insisting on that edit being accepted. And I'd like to apologize in advance if I'm wrong here. Terrorist96 (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Looks like he just accidentally outed himself: [50] then quickly realized he was logged into the wrong account: [51]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Taking into account what was said in this edit here [52] it seems pretty certain its him. Also, it should be noted that Yawsgwyn has made only one more edit on an article now [53] and its on an article where Dan the Plumber has previously edit warred and one whole paragraph that was re-introduced by Yawsgwyn was identical to the version Dan the Plumber was pushing for. EkoGraf (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

05 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Issue seems to revolve around Lynching of Michael Donald and the addition of unsourced BLP content from an IP, removed by Sandstein, and the restored three times by an IP, Dobrokurt, and Colorhavel.

There also a series of bad faith edits from both Colorhavel and Dobrokurt oddly requesting talk page discussion on properly added content on Rayleigh–Lorentz pendulum [54][55], Cryptostylis [56][57], and reverting a ProveIt assited edit [58]. I suspect all of these edits are being done to cover/justify their edits to Lynching of Michael Donald. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

10 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Prop9 was edit warring at Edward S. Herman against FreeKnowledgeCreator and TheTimesAreAChanging. Stepscanto appeared to help out in that edit war and restore messages that Prop9 left for FreeKnowledgeCreator. Then LiberationOfKnowledge shows up (while FreeKnowledgeCreator is still active), calls Stepscanto a sock and generally acting like a too-obvious sock for FreeKnowledgeCreator. Now, given that FreeKnowledgeCreator is not stupid, I doubt he'd make such an obvious sock to begin with -- especially if he was talented enough to edit under both accounts at the same time. I've already blocked Stepscanto and LiberationOfKnowledge as the same user, and would like CU (or at least another set of eyes) to confirm that Stepscanto/LiberationOfKnowledge is really Prop9 (or if the real sockmaster is just trying to muddy the waters for both users). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I'd recommend looking into Inezgazes as well.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have already stated this, so I shouldn't need to repeat myself here, but just to be completely clear about it, none of the accounts listed above - Prop9, Stepscanto, LiberationOfKnowledge, and Inezgazes - has anything to do with me. They are not my sockpuppets, or my meatpuppets, and I have no idea who they are in real life. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Architect134 has found a new and subtler method of causing disruption: inserting their socks into other peoples' disputes, which combines muddying the waters generally with joe-jobbing specifically, while also avoiding the usual behavioural give-aways (since they will be editing in other editors' disputes). For example, see my recently filed, which had much the same—bizarre—result. Worth remembering, this one. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The blocks of the three alleged socks look to be justified on behavioral grounds. Though Prop9 was given only a short block they are probably on course to get indefinitely blocked for disruption after their current block expires. (There isn't a hint of any good-faith editing, and they are all behaving as though they have nothing to lose). It might still be beneficial to get a checkuser to tie up all the loose ends. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The socks are actually Red X Unrelated to Prop9, but I can confirm all three of them to Secondary sense, which is a sock of Architect 134. Weird. ~ Rob13Talk 08:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now re-blocked as CU blocks and tagged.  Clerk assistance requested: Please move this to the correct SPI. ~ Rob13Talk 08:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

First edit is to continue RobThomas15's edit war. This unusual first edit appears to meet WP:QUACK. Please block the sock and extend block on master for block evasion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

At least this time around he has tried to engage in discussion on the article's talk page, but shouldn't be doing so while blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

15 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Leggyharms (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was blocked as a sock of Architect 134 by DoRD. Leggyharms basically admitted to being a sock of GUAE321 on Chrissymad's talk page (GUA is blocked for 24 hours for edit warring). Both Gua and Leggy have the AQA Holdings article in common. So a CU might help connect the dots. JC7V-constructive zone 03:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - PLease, compare GUAE321 to Leggyharms. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, I could have told you that the two accounts were Red X Unrelated before I checked, and they are. Leggyharms acts like Architect 134. GUAE321 doesn't act a bit like Architect 134. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also @JC7V7DC5768 and Vanjagenije: Please be aware that one of A134's most obvious behaviors is imitating/joe jobbing other users. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Behavior SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Who is SarekOfVulcan and why is he involved in a minor dispute about the conduct of an unrelated editor? I have done nothing but assume good faith on the part of other editors during this whole process, and this person I have never heard of suddenly accusing me of sockpuppetry. Hymnsana (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me I'm going ahead and blocking because the only way this could be more obvious is if the account was named "RobThomas15's sockpuppet." I'm also extending RobThomas15's block because he's shown that he's not interested in abiding by our policies or guidelines. I'm not going to close this because a CU might spot something. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note another suspected sock is Shawmanic (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and the behavior is quite obvious, editing List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2010s and Big City Greens with the master. The master is only blocked temporarily. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 01:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore. I almost blocked Shawmanic myself when he was reported at AIV. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]


17 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Billy Greens edits

Intentionally changing a song title from "10,000 Reasons (Bless the Lord)" to simply ""10,000 Reasons" against verifiable sources to the contrary

There are also the time-of-day coincidences. More than a WP:QUACK Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to edit war for block evasion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Please block the self-admitted sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik:  Blocked but awaiting tags I may get to the tags in a moment, just adding pages to my watchlist since RobThomas15's decided to do this the stupid way. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Identical edits to previous socks. Bradv 01:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Block evasion. The reason RobThomas15 was blocked was for edit warring on List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2010s

  • RobThomas15's edits: [59] four in all, only offering one.
  • JRTom51's second edit: [60]

No coincidence that RobThomas15 made an informal unblock request earlier today: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RobThomas15&diff=prev&oldid=857001819 This seems to imply that RobThomas15 has once again rekindled his interest in Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Account now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Already blocked as a sock per WP:QUACK. Just doing this for accounting purposes. Is a community ban in order? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

30 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


New account that made a single edit, with edit summary "Removing excessive detail that doesn’t belong in this article" that is nearly identical to multiple 3RR violating edits made recently by 72bikers, who is currently blocked for said violation. See 1, 2, 3, all with edit summaries "Removed overly detailed content , this is not a gun article". Waleswatcher (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I see the similarity in edit summary WW is referring to. However, 72bikers edits to that article have all been focused on the weapons used section (and as it relates to AR-15s and the like). The material in question was in the psychology and drug related problems section. This is an area that 72bikers hasn't previously edited. Springee (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: Look again. Ponyrogue's edit removed precisely the same material in the weapons used section that 72bikers' edits did. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I just saw the initial edit and missed (should have scrolled the screen) the rest of the edited material. I would again note that 72bikers has shown no interest in the psychology part of the article so it seems unlikely he would have removed that material. If the CU comes back negative I would assume this is a different user. Springee (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

08 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Using multiple accounts to enter incorrect info on KJNB-LD. [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Ricesmaura is Red X Unrelated to Jbmarshall2014 but is  Confirmed to RobThomas15 (talk · contribs · count) along with Downspook (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked and tagged.  Clerk assistance requested: Please merge to RobThomas15.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Closing. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bbb23: Should we move all this (including archives) to Architect 134? Thanks, GABgab 15:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GeneralizationsAreBad: That's what I would do, but before doing that, I'll make it clear that RobThomas15, who has been unblocked, is Red X Unrelated to Architect 134 and there is no evidence that RobThomas15 has socked. Please wait, though, for concurrence from Zzuuzz before merging. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I concur. Please merge it all. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GeneralizationsAreBad: -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged everything, closing. GABgab 14:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21 October 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Editor admits to being a sock here, which they self-reverted a couple minutes later.

This account was created a couple of hours before the edit war-notice board post was created and OnceASpy was blocked. Chalkmos repeated pointless edits like this one to get autoconfirmed, which seems precocious. Grayfell (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Reinstated an edit by OnceASpy here. Used pretty much the same edit summary tactic as OnceASpy used i.e. suggesting that people use the talk page when they have not done so themselves. That said they did make one attempt to use the talk page this time and, oh boy, did they drop themselves in it: diff! Yes, they admit that it is "their" edit and that they were blocked for it. Yes, that's pretty much a confession. DanielRigal (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Admission makes this pretty clear cut. Blocking and closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've temporarily put this on hold pending CU stuff. Please email if there's any questions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sir Sputnik: Chalkmos is confirmed to be a joe-job by Architect 134, and OnceASpy is unrelated. Please consider merging. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20 November 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


First edit is creating a user page stating they want to be an admin: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheBigBoss3900&oldid=845920914 This tactic of wanting to be an admin after X number of edits was used by User:Sakaimover, a blocked sock of A134. They have since caused problems, switched user names, and warranted an ANI complaint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#TheUltamateBoss3900 Tarage (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Note that they have basically confirmed they are the same person ([66]). Impru20talk 23:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Striking it, since I basically misread what account were they actually referring to. Nonetheless, it is all but certain that this user and TheBigBoss3900 are one and the same, despite this not being a case of FRESHSTART, so the evidence of multiple accounts abuse is there. Impru20talk 23:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

These users are not Architect 134. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I was so sure... --Tarage (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09 January 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Suspicious edit to my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diamond_Blizzard&diff=prev&oldid=876065189&diffmode=source

Previous sockpuppet User:DaMondo Gizzard used similar language in edit summary to attack me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dynasty_(2017_TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=848614747&diffmode=source There was also a sockpuppet called User:LWharpoon.

This user also made other unconstructive edits, especially at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population&diff=next&oldid=857724833&diffmode=source (although I will admit the connection might be to a different editor - unless Noramiao and Architect 134 are connected). Diamond Blizzard talk 05:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

09 February 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See [67] for an overview. Rogue and Super seem like a duck to me but DesperateHousecarl is a little iffy. See [68] [69] [70] [71]. Checkuser requested to confirm DesperateHousecat and find any possible sleepers. Kb03 (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Update, Roguetopic has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Architect 134. Kb03 (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Given Architect 134's history, I'm closing this without further action. GABgab 10:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18 November 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Suspicious new account shows up to continue the edit warring at Haplogroup R-M124 ([72]) and posted this message to previous account ([73]). theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Technically Red X Unrelated. Sock  Blocked without tags, but not taking any action against the master as a possible joe job. ST47 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold per above Mz7 (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further review, I think it is extremely  Likely that Vidisirax is Architect 134 (talk · contribs), completely unrelated to ViscontiEnsi. This is a classic MO for Architect 134: find a case of edit warring from WP:ANEW and masquerade as one of the edit warring users.  Clerk assistance requested: Please move this case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Clerk note: Case moved — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24 November 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Yesterday I blocked Meldmambo for inappropriate signatures and use of sandbox. Today, i got a ping from Darylrates ([74]).

Darylrates made an inappropriate userpage as their first edit ([75]). Meldmambo used appropriate signatures (e.g., [76]). Darylrates is doing the same ([77], [78], [79]). Note both users primarily revert and warn others.

Darylrates started by changing spacing in headers ([80], [81], [82]). Meldmambo did too ([83], [84], [85]). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 just blocked Darylrates. I'm starting to think this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yourname.
Bbb23 Sorry about that. CU requested to confirm, but to also see if there is an older master account (again, thinking this could be Yourname, but I don't have the diffs to support that at the moment... but now that ST47 blocked as LTA, it might be worth looking). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ST47 i'm not very familiar with that case but a brief review of their SPI archives makes me think it could be. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

@EvergreenFir: When you request a check, you should explain why. @ST47: Normally, I would close this as the suspected puppet is blocked, but you might want to do something more with this report, so I'm leaving the status as is.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

26 November 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Alainlambert is currently blocked for a week and filed an unblock request requesting "evidence" that they engaged in sockpuppetry. WP:DUCK is apparent. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alainlambert. Let's get the official confirmation and see if there are any sleeper accounts. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

28 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This appears to be block evasion. Abbsymal is a new editor with a similar username as Abbymsmall, whose only edit is to restore the last edit by Abbymsmall [86] [87] Ronz (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

30 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Already blocked, not yet tagged. I'm about to drop a rangeblock or two. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk note: I've emailed Drmies.  On hold pending a response. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolved. Socks are  Blocked and tagged. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11 January 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Began editing immediately after Edit5001 was topic-banned. First three edits are all to pages previously edited by Edit5001. First edit was to restore text previously added by Edit5001, subsequent edits have been to tweak text that had recently been edited by Edit5001, with edit summaries that echo Edit5001's style (though this style is not particularly distinctive; see last few edit summaries here). JBL (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Done. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16 January 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The master, a longtime promotional editor on the Onix Audio article, was recently blocked for edit warring. Several hours after the block, the account Soaveidea (1 edit total) appeared to carry on the master's work. Appears to be the obvious. Their contribs and very simlar edit summary typos are summed up in the interaction timeline (scroll to bottom).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk endorsed - Check for sleepers and connection. qedk (t 桜 c) 13:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soaveidea is  Confirmed to be Architect 134, and is Red X Unrelated to Tonyb1961. ST47 (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I changed the tag on Soaveidea to reflect that the account is confirmed to a different master. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Joe-job? From CU results and recent Joe-jobbing done by 134, it seems so. Therefore, its probably best this is moved there.  Clerk assistance requested: Requesting this be moved to Architect 134 based on this. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if a clerk agrees this is a Joe-job and moves the case, JJMC89 would you agree to an unblock for the unrelated account? Their original edit warring block would be expired by now. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the case and unblocked Tonyb1961. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08 February 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

MG2020DTC was blocked for 72 hours, but it sounds like there is a connection with this sockfarm based on the following activities.

EMmegLY was already blocked by Bbb23 and I guess the CU data wasn't enough for MG2020DTC so, requesting indefinite block based on their behaviour. Thank you. GSS 💬 04:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • None of this evidence relates to MG2020DTC's actions, and there is no reason to believe that they are a sockpuppet of A134. ST47 (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Newly active user, clear attempts 1 2 3 to intimidate user involved in dispute over at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Repeated_addition_of_"China_Virus" over 31 hour blocking for edit warring, directly mentions user by name. Symphony Regalia directly undid an edit by Dekimasu removing the warning from Karicodex stating in the edit summary:"Why are you removing comments from your talk page?", showing that they are clearly connected. Ip users are a less open-shut case, but they are reinstating edits made by S R and speak in a similar manner. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Lol, those are definitely not my accounts. I believe that the user reporting this has a personal vendetta against me. Over the past 2 days he has personally insulted me at least 5 times. He follows me around from article to article, and just 20 minutes ago commented:

"@Symphony Regalia: Wow mate you know absolutely fuck all about chinese people do you? When people say they are American born chinese, they mean that they are americans who are ethnically Han Chinese, often shortened to just "Chinese" as they make up 90% of China's population. In another thread you suggested that "First of all Chinese is not a race. It is a nationality, and anyone of any race can be Chinese. Such an antiquated view erases Black Chinese, White Chinese, the Uighur Chinese in Xinjiang." Who the fuck are the "White chinese" and "Black chinese" exactly? Does all of your knowledge of East Asia come from Anime?"

This tells me that he decided to file this report first and foremost to get revenge and intimidate me, and is using whatever tools he can. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pot calling the kettle black, just because I have been rude to you doesn't mean I am wrong, this is called ad hominiem, as you don't have any substantiative arguments against the fact that you engaged in sockpuppetry. Admittedly I mercilessly mocked you a bit too much, and I think I went too far, but, to suggest that this is a campaign of harassment is disingenuous. @Dekimasu: for his perspective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Karicodex is  Confirmed to Architect 134. No comment on the IPs, and I didn't check Symphony Regalia. ST47 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Associated with the confirmed sockpuppet Karicodex, 1 2 3 using bogus talk page warnings to intimidate user involved in dispute over at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Repeated_addition_of_"China_Virus" involving Symphony Regalia, for which Symphony Regalia was blocked for 31 hours for violating the Three Revert rule. Symphony Regalia undid an edit Dekimasu did removing phoney warning by Karicodex stating in the edit "Why are you removing comments from your talk page?" which all but confirms the association. I have been rude with this user and they have accused me of harassment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Check declined by a checkuser. Why would you even file this? None of the listed evidence relates in any way to this case. ST47 (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

31 May 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Confirmed by CU. TheSandDoctor Talk 06:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Pro forma report. Closing as nothing further to action here. TheSandDoctor Talk 06:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05 June 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This is a continuation of the situation at Julius Evola. An editor named VeritasVox was partially blocked from editing this article, [88] and subequently received a topic ban from Nazism,, Fascism and anti-Semitism. In the middle of the AN/I discussion about him, [89] after he had been blocked from editing the article, a editor called Souprsmarx showed up and made edits similarl to VeritasVox's. I filed an SPI against Soupsmarx as a sock of VeritasVox, but it turned out that Soupsmark was actually a sock of Architect 134. [90]

Now another brand new editor turns up at the article to begin their editing career [91], this one called TurnipGod, who began to make the same kind of edits that VeritasVix made before they were blocked from the article and banned from the broader subject. This new editor could be either VeritasVox or Architect 134, but because VV has no history of socking, and A134 has an extensive one, I'm filing it as a sock of theirs -- but I wouldn't be surprised to find that it was sock of VV.

Like the last time, the evidence is largely behavioral -- making the same kind of edits that VV made, arguing about the descriptions of Evola as "anti-semitic" and "conspiracy theorist". [92] TurnipGod has gone farther than Soupsmarx, who only had time for one edit before they were indeff'd. A checkuser is suggested to see if any of the other couple of editors who have shown up at the artice may be connected (Perennial85, for instance).

If turnipGod does turn out to be a sock, some kind of protection for the article would seem tpo be called for to stop the next one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Zzuuzz: Thanks. Things would be easier if the CU was conclusive, but I'll see if I can draw a more detailed picture of how VV's and TurnipGod's edits are similar. Beyond My Ken (talk)

VeritasVox's recent editing to the article

  • Before they were blocked from editing the article, VeritasVox had 21 edits to the article, and edits to the talk page, going back to 15 May 2018. [93]. Almost all of his edits were to "clarify" Evola's political and philosophical position, primarily by watering straightforward (and sourced) descriptions. Here as his last four edits, all of which took place on May 22:
  • First edit [94] removed "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" from description of Evola
  • Second edit [95] removed "antisemitic conspiracy theorist again" and added a statement (unsourced) which again served to whitewash Evola: "Evola frequently criticised both capitalism and communism as subversive manifestations of the modern world, and is noted for his prologue to the second Italian edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where he placed this critique within the context of an antisemitic conspiracy theory."
  • Third edit: [96] restored the above edit after it had been deleted by Greyfall
  • Fourth edit: [97] and the same again.

TurnipGod's editing to Julius Evola

  • TurnipGod has made 4 edits to Julius Evola and 3 edits to its talk page:
  • The first edit to the article [98] changed the description of Evola from "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" to "antisemite"
  • The first edit to the talk page [99] announced that they had removed "conspiracy theorist" but said "we will have to circle back as some may have a political axe to grind by making changes to this page", showing that they had an awareness of the page's editing history
  • The second edit to the talk page [100] made a minor change to the previous talk page edit
  • The second edit to the article [101] restored the change after it had been reverted by Greyfall
  • The third edit to the article [102] removed "antisemtic racist", which had been added by another editor
  • The fourth and most recent edit to the article [103] removed antisemitic conspiracy theorist" again and replaced it with "self-described 'superfascist'"
  • The third edit to the talk page [104] was addressed to me and says, in full: "Please remain civil and keep the sarcasm to a minimum. This is a discussion page for edits, not a chance to label online editors "your enemy." You have to confront good faith edits to the page, and sometimes that requires examining your own biases. "Antisemitic conspiracy theorist/racist" is not a neutral tone when examining the works of this philosopher. I will escalate this issue if you continue to add negative/non-neutral dialogue to this page." It was after this was posted that I decided to file an SPI. In the AN/I concerning VoxVeritas [[105]], he and I had a very sharp discussion about his editing, and it seemed to me that this reaction was unlikely to have come from a new editor with no previous history of disputes with me. It seemed, rather, like VV's shot across the bow to inhibit me from taking him on again.

Obviously, TurnipGod's edits are almost precisely the same as VeritasVox' previous ones. I believe that this is strong behavioral evidence for TG to be either a sock or a meatpuppet of VeritasVox, despite the lack of a clear CU result. There's also the possibility that Architect 134 agrees with VeritasVox's stance regarding Evola (by which I mean that the Soupsmarx incident wasn't just mucking around for the sake of disruption), since Soupsmarx's single edit [106] restored VV's removal of "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" and his addition of the "context" stateent. This opens the possibility that TG could be A134's sock - the behavioral evidence supports either possibility. In any case, a sock is a sock, no matter whose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now another brand new editor appears to make their first edits to the article and talk page, EthanUrban, to make exactly the same edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
zzuuzz: Thanks, I'll request semi-protection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article protected, and TurnipGod blocked by JzG as NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

The data are a little sparse, and there's some  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, but I conclude that:

  • TurnipGod is not entirely consistent with Architect 134
  • VeritasVox is unrelated to the others
  • Perennial85 is inconclusive

-- zzuuzz (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked EthanUrban (who is not A134), but don't have anything to add at this time except this: this article history has been going on for some time with editors and IPs from various countries, and the risks of joe-jobs, false acccusations, and meat puppetry are all elevated (plus I would support semi-protection). -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz, Just to verify, EthanUrban is blocked, but not tagged? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, and so it should remain for this account. My only public comment is that above. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10 August 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Pro forma report. See below. Mz7 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Confirmed.  Blocked and tagged, lock requested, closing. Mz7 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02 September 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Mossyninja's userpage is extremely similar to the userpage of Architect 134's most recently blocked sock, Spawnrec. The similarities between the two (references to SAT scores, wanting to get into Harvard, having created the account for a computer science class, being a high school senior, as well as the shared interest in anti-vandalism work) make this look like a duck to me. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Hm. I wouldn't say this is enough to block on its own, but it is fairly suggestive. Combined with how they look like they're starting out doing vandalism cleanup (also seen from Spawnrec) and have left an abusive edit summary or two (apparently fairly common from A134 socks), I think there's enough here behaviorally that a CU is appropriate. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Mz7 (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). Aspects of the behavior here are very distinctive; I am convinced on the evidence.  Blocked and tagged, closing. Mz7 (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Pro forma report. See below. Mz7 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Confirmed.  Blocked and tagged, closing. Mz7 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User created at approximate time the latest sock of the puppeteer was blocked, and went right to work on their last creation. Onel5969 TT me 23:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Blocked and tagged — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Relatively new WP:SPA engaging in CVU work. 156.219.58.255 (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Oshwah: This is a very suspiscious new account. For example, they seem to care a lot about user rights, implying WP:NOTHERE or bad-faith editing, similar to other A134 accounts such as Ravenzing (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). They registered their account on thetestwiki.org on December 1, before registering an account on Wikimedia. You think it would be the other away around but no. 156.219.58.255 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an example of bad faith editing: they restored POV to Northport, NY. So they're probably a sock of this, but if they're not, they're a sock of someone. 156.219.58.255 (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk note: The evidence provided isn't sufficiently conclusive to justify checkuser, much less a block. We don't checkuser people for "looking suspicious." Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Pro forma report. See below. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Confirmed in addition to these accounts.  Blocked without tags. I am filing this SPI pro forma mainly because the three accounts above have branched out to the Wikimedia Commons. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Please see contributions. gnu57 07:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

17 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Architect 134 is an LTA who creates abusive userspace templates (usually with messages along the lines of "this user is in disgrace") and transcludes them onto other people's user pages. Here are some past examples from blocked socks. (In some cases, you'll need to view the source to see the hidden messages):

The accounts listed above have all created similar userspace templates. See for example:

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Blocked without tags — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

27 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See trolling username and User:Moishtithole/sandbox. Would have thought the name was block-on-sight anyway, but it also fits the A134 pattern. Account was created in April, so requesting to CU to check for any more recently-active sleepers. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Confirmed. Bagging and tagging sock account. This SPI report can be closed... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09 March 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Pro forma: already CU-blocked. Matches sock of Architect sock that was blocked earlier, User:Dave Rile. The trolling is obvious. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

17 April 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Same type of inappropriate username, userpage, signature fitting the pattern of other socks, became active ~4 days after most recent sock Anachlode was blocked. Not obviously a sock afaict, so requesting CU to verify if needed. ~ANM🐁 T·C 05:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Yup. No obvious sleepers; they're currently burning sleepers which are 12+ months old. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10 June 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Architect 134 creates sleeper accounts in batches; the above accounts with gross-out or impersonation usernames were created in quick succession on March 19, April 2, or April 16. gnu57 18:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

None of the suspected socks have any contributions, and the accounts were created 2-3 months ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Blocked without tags. Bbb23 raises good points, but I've blocked all the non-stale accounts I can find anyway. These will like come alive eventually to troll and vandalize, and we don't really need that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested. --Blablubbs|talk 10:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19 June 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Usual semi-offensive username. Looks to be part of this batch (view with markblocked gadget). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

03 July 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Sleeper accounts with typical username pattern. Created around the same time as Sfincterjuice. Bungstnk Left a large number of links to a racist forum on new users' talk pages; can someone please Special:Nuke those where possible? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

04 July 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Three points to consider:

  1. The username is of the same pattern as other recently blocked socks. See ~aidqsueef (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for one example.
  2. Editing an RfA as the 11th edit: clearly not a new account.
  3. The signature pattern (abusive images linked in sign) reminds me of another known sock, Rob experienced IP (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (see the revdelled edits to talk pages). This account is explicitly glocked as Architect 134.

Zzuuzz has blocked many Architect 134 socks of late, but as he is on wikibreak I fear we cannot consultant him. JavaHurricane 12:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

02 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

More sleeper accounts with off-colour usernames. gnu57 21:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

All seem stale for CU, but most or all are probably A134. I'll SPI-block them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Usual abusive username pattern, already blocked. Please check for sleepers, thanks. JavaHurricane 08:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Confirmed and  No sleepers immediately visible. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Pro forma report (filing purely for the record). See below. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Sandydaren is  Confirmed to Pegasi lux, and these are  Possible to Architect 134. I am filing this case under Architect 134 because there are several characteristics of the behavior that are very similar to Architect 134. For Pegasi lux, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrightOrion/Archive.  Blocked and tagged, closing. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Not stale

Likely stale

More of the same. Some of these (particularly the ones towards the top of the list) should be fresh enough for CU. gnu57 13:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I bundled the definitely non-stale accounts into a separate group.  Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All blocked, plus some others. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Architect_134/Archive/1

Leave a Reply