archive |
NelsonSudan (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 860: | Line 860: | ||
****I think you performed a transformation, but if you are interested in avoiding some parts of what a CheckUser may include you may like to try: http://panopticlick.eff.org/. Another "translation" is: Is the Wikimedia Foundation posting false claims about a living person? [[User:SIA-Populated places in India|SIA-Populated places in India]] ([[User talk:SIA-Populated places in India|talk]]) 17:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
****I think you performed a transformation, but if you are interested in avoiding some parts of what a CheckUser may include you may like to try: http://panopticlick.eff.org/. Another "translation" is: Is the Wikimedia Foundation posting false claims about a living person? [[User:SIA-Populated places in India|SIA-Populated places in India]] ([[User talk:SIA-Populated places in India|talk]]) 17:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
*****Enough messing around. Blocked, tagged, marked for close. <font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 17:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
*****Enough messing around. Blocked, tagged, marked for close. <font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 17:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
==Reopen this case. Just what did Editor do to deserve permanent ban?== |
|||
Wikipedia is an amateur organisation (in terms of content / banning editors etc). The facts are that one amateur editor (styled Tobias Conradi) was banned by another editor. Amateurs makinsg decisions about fellow amateurs. This is not some High Court where proper procedures re followed. We should be humble and acknowledge this. I don't know what exactly Tobias Conradi did IN THE BEGINNING to get banned....but was it really so bad? Itis hardly surprising he or she has been involved in so called "sock puppeting" since then. After all, he had no alternative....He was banned! I don't dont know the Editor in question. I have no connections. I came across this because I was leading a discussion re [[Dominion of India]] and Tobias Conradi tried to participate but what he said was deleted...Believe me, the quality of discussion there is very low. Not many editors are involved. I welcome more editors and would like to hear what Tobias Conradi has to contribute on the discussion. Give him a chance to contribute again. Wikipedia is really weak these days...so few editors and so many that just make lazy contributions. Tobias Conradi has been banned for a long long time.....Its time to let him back into Wikipedia and give him a no strings attached chance to participate. Censoring him and this permanent "gagging" is really undemocratic....and unfair given he was banned by a fellow amateur....Other editors have asked these questions above.....Its time to stop this permanent tarring of some one who seems to want to contribute.....and WP needs contributors! [[User:NelsonSudan|NelsonSudan]] ([[User talk:NelsonSudan|talk]]) 11:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
Revision as of 11:31, 11 August 2011
Tobias Conradi
- Tobias Conradi (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
Report date March 20 2009, 15:39 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- TopoCode2009 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Clerk note: copied from bot reports Mayalld (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- TopoCode2009 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the literal pattern topocode.
- This report was delayed until the user edited.
- The string topocode is often associated with sock puppets of User:TopoCode HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Clerk note: I think that the username is a dead giveaway. Because of the history, I'll leave to a more experienced clerk. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Blocked, please tag and archive. —— nixeagleemail me 04:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Report date April 22 2009, 11:50 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- TopoCode2009c (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by —Snigbrook
User:TopoCode2009 and User:TopoCode2009b were blocked as sockpuppets of banned user User:Tobias Conradi. A new account User:TopoCode2009c has an almost identical username and the user's first edits are pages User:Tobias Conradi created or edited. —Snigbrook 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I blocked both TopoCode2009b and TopoCode2009c as obvious socks. Check for sleepers? Wknight94 talk 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Mayalld (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Report date April 30 2009, 12:54 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- TopoCode2009e (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by HBC NameWatcherBot
- TopoCode2009e (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- This user has edited at least one time.
- Matches the literal pattern topocode.
- This report was delayed until the user edited.
- The string topocode is often associated with sock puppets of User:TopoCode HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
I got this You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Mayalld (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know what is wrong with the string TopoCode - I could create the account with that name. I am here for improving Wikipedia, you can see my contributions. If you don't want that someone uses the string "topocode" you should block it on account registration. What you do - blocking accounts with good contributions only because they match a string you think is a sock puppet of a long banned user (BTW, for what reason was Tobias Conradi banned?) - is it really working towards the goals of Wikipedia? Tobias Conradi can use 10000 of other strings, will you block all these strings? See also Wikipedia:Why create an account? "creating an account is quick". He could also use IP for editing. TopoCode2009e (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note: There is nothing wrong with the string Topocode. As things stand, it is merely a helpful pointer to people that you are editing again. Mentioning Tobias Conradi in the third person, whilst using Topocode in your user name and editing exactly the articles that he edited is pretty convincing evidence that you are he, and regardless of contribution quality, a banned user cannot edit. Mayalld (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- You mean users that a) touch an article that Tobias Conradi ones edited and b) happen to mention Tobias Conradi in third person (e.g. because being accused to be him), these users are all run by Tobias Conradi? You where the first who mentioned Tobias Conradi, take care to never edit an article that he ones edited.
- You say "a banned user cannot edit" - if this is true, sock puppetry of/by Tobias Conradi could not exist. You blocking me is then a policy violation.
- What has all this Tobias Conradi stuff to do with TopoCode? 79.193.138.171 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I must apologise for any imprecise language in my prior comment
- If you edit his favourite articles, making similar edits, using a similar username, then suspicion will fall on you. Referring to him in the third person isn't going to carry much weight in convincing people that you aren't him
- I haven't blocked you (somebody else has), and I ought to have said "Banned users are not permitted to edit, and when they do edit they will be reverted on sight"
- Topocode (talk · contribs) was previously identified as a sock of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs)
- Mayalld (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I must apologise for any imprecise language in my prior comment
- Comments by other users
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Clerk note: bot report transfered into a case. Mayalld (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note: The original ban discussion can be found here Mayalld (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions
Completed all blocked. Mayalld (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Mayalld (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
15 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Skäpperöd
On 13 August, I opened an AN/I thread to have a salted redirect deleted and a controversial move of the article Province of Pomerania undone. Both actions were performed by Schwyz. The debate became heated, as other users had experienced similar problems with Schwyz, and an RfC/U on Schwyz was opened in the course of the AN/I discussion (13 August 10:37 UTC). Thereupon Schwyz retired their account (notice of 13 August 10:57 UTC, last edit on 13 August 11:10 UTC). PS: Due to Schwyz's retirement, the RfCU was deleted on 16 August 00:009 UTC, admins may view the deleted page here
Preceeding their retirement, Schwyz had opened an RM discussion on 13 August 10:28 UTC. This was done before Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) resolved the AN/I thread and moved the article back.
On 14 August, 79.193.147.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) became active and performed four edits to the RM in Schwyz's favour:
The style closely resembles Schwyz:
- The edit summaries are extensive (which I usually appreciate, compare e/s use in Schwyz contribs and IP contribs)
- They show that the IP is very familiar with the request
- They refer to an article Schwyz had moved before (which was also undone), see especially this IP edit, cf. this and subsequent Schwyz edits.
The next, and as of now last IP edit was to the Schwyz AN/I thread linked above, where they restored a comment of Schwyz previously struck out by another user,
- on 22:07 UTC.
Schwyz had performed several controversial moves, as seen eg in the RfC/U linked above and here, yet they showed an extraordinary interest in the "Province of Pomerania"-move:
- They had moved it before, which was undone by Favonian (talk · contribs) following a request of mine [1],
- and they had also asked Green Giant (talk · contribs) to "have a look at [[Talk:Province_of_Pomerania_(1815-1945)#Requested_move]]", which is the RM in question, on 13 August 10:38 UTC.
- Also, it was that move which triggered the filing of the RfC/U.
Given that the user is editing their own RM thread and an AN/I thread concerned with them in their own favor using an undisclosed spa IP rather than the Schwyz account, which they retired a day before, I assume that this is not a "logged out by mistake" or a "clean start", but a case of sockpuppetry and vote fraud that requires preventive blocks. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
I have no idea if the IP is the same editor as Schwyz (my thought was that Schwyz was Swiss whereas the IP is from Germany). But this statement is clearly false: I assume that this is not a "logged out by mistake" or a "clean start", but a case of sockpuppetry and vote fraud. Even if the IP is the same person, they are not voting in the proposed rename vote, just commenting, hence I don't see how this can be seen as "vote fraud". It seems to me that Schwyz felt (rightly or wrongly) harassed by certain users so s/he decided to retire (and s/he was not subject to any blocks, bans or restrictions at this time, hence "in good standing"). Even if the IP is him/her, the retirement does not imply that the person behind the account gives up the right to ever again edit Wikipedia. In fact, editing as an anonymous IP is well within his/her rights (I believe there's even a Wikipedia Philosophy which advocates this). Schwyz's last edit was on August 13 at 11:10. This IP's edits began on August 14 22:07. This is not sock puppetry. At worst this is a case of a user trying to have a clean start after they felt themselves to be (rightly or wrongly) subject of harassment.
Of course if both accounts edit in the future simultaneously then it COULD be a subject of an SPI.radek (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
In any case, there is no abusive socking going on here. However, I have to question why a person would exercise WP:CLEANSTART by abandoning a registered account and going to an IP, because that would only reveal more information about you (as opposed to abandoning an account and creating a new one – something in which users have done with reluctant consensus from the community to do so). –MuZemike 22:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
26 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- TakakaCounty (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Dpmuk
Extremely similar pattern of moves (TakakaCounty and Schwyz) and similar adding of categories (Takaka County and Schwyz). TakakaCounty's first edit was approximately a day and a half after Schwyz where they claimed to leave the project. At the time several editors were querying Schwyz's moves and an RfC/U had been started by me, which was not certified due to Schwyz's stated intention to leave (and so has now been deleted), however one other edit to had agreed to certify here and several others were considering it so I think it's very likely that the RfC/U would have been cerified if not pre-empted by the user leaving. Although clean breaks are allowed this new editor has started making similar actions to those that were to be discussed in the RfC/U so if this is the same editor it is against WP:SCRUTINY and not a legitimate attempt to make a clean break. Personally I don't think the behaviour evidence is quite conclusive enough but I'll leave it to others to make a decision on whetehr a CU is needed. Dpmuk (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Behavioral evidence presented by Dpmuk was sufficient for a DUCK block. I've blocked the main account for one week and tagged the sock accordingly. Blurpeace 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
20 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- TruckCard (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- EuropeanCowboy (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by L.tak
Behavioural: user pushes an EU-template National identity cards in where previously a worldwide template template:identity cards was used. These 2 were the only to use the template. EuropeanCowboy just created his account today and is already doing these changes en masse, which is a bit suspicious for a new user (see his whole edit history)
TruckCard is blocked in a related matter see ANI. This needs to be checked, and if true the sock should be blocked... L.tak (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Confirmed –MuZemike 04:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
20 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by L.tak
Behaviour same as TruckCard (see up). Discussing Truckcards case at User talk:Roger Davies with this edit. I didn't see it yesterday, but it was in the same series... L.tak (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
IP blocked 55 hours for obvious block evasion. Note this is not a checkuser block. TNXMan 17:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
25 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- TigreTiger (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- TakakaCounty (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by JaGa
Very similar editing patterns as Schwyz and TakakaCounty. (Also, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz/Archive) Lots of undiscussed page moves, usually to tag "Municipality", "District", etc. on geographic articles. Schwyz's non-collaborative behavior had led to this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Schwyz, which Schwyz successfully avoided by announcing his "departure" from the wiki - and then later reappearing as TakakaCounty. I believe this is yet another account of Schwyz. JaGatalk 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and note this account has only existed since October 20. --JaGatalk 15:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
=Part 1=
Hello. I am not Schwyz. It seems you have a problem with the way I work and that way was similar to the way Schwyz worked.
So maybe best is to address the underlying issue. Let me try to explain.
I am working on several pages and clean up links. Let me explain the topic to you. See these five examples of ambiguous subdivision names:
- Alto Alentejo (disambiguation): Province / Subregion
- Baixo Alentejo (disambiguation): Province / Subregion
- Trás-os-Montes (disambiguation): region / Province
- Estremadura Province (disambiguation): two different ones
- Beira Litoral (disambiguation): postal region, 1936 province
People that didn't take into account the above ambiguities did link to the plain names.
Same is for towns, municipalities and parishes, which often bear the same name, but are very different entities.
Since this is all about geography of Portugal, it is often the case that several wrong links appear in one page.
You showed me a powerful tool, the Dab solver, which is exactly great if there are several wrong links on on page. It shows all links within a page that go to disambiguation pages and one can fix them quite conveniently in the case that the correct links are contained in the disambiguation pages. If not it fails. It also does not detect false links, e.g. a link is /meant/ to go to Evora District, but points to Evora, and if the latter is not a disambiguation page no warning shows up.
See example of fixing 36 links with your tool in one run: [2].
To summarize the tool works best if disambiguation pages exist. And exactly that is what I am doing.
But here is one problem: If I create a disambiguation page it shows up somewhere in your control panels and you get an alert and want me to fix. But then I have to fix each individually and can not use the power of the dab solver.
So let me say: I want to go to a page and clean all bad links.
The other way would be: "clean/change" the links first and then create the disambiguation pages and the articles. But that way for a certain time, there would be lot of red links. I think that would be bad to the users of the wikipedia.
I see you have a problem with disambiguation pages appearing somewhere in your control tools for a limited time. Already within one day or so, it seems to be a problem for you. I don't know how else to work?
I hope we can find a way to address the problems. That you educated me about some tools is already helpful. Please help me to perform better. TigreTiger (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
=Part 2=
I looked at the Schwyz and TakakaCounty stuff. It is sad to see how users with contributions to geography are driven out of the project. JaGa on his page claims he is from California and Ohio at the same time. So he is from the US. I once read a study that geographic knowledge among US people on average is lower than among Europeans. Maybe this is the reason here. Due to his cultural background he cannot understand the complexity of the world. State and county borders in the US often have straight lines. Not true in Europe. State borders are quite stable. Not true for the subdivision borders in Portugal.
He also seems to have a tunnel view when watching his dab control panels, and when new dab pages appear having incoming links he things this is something bad. But worse is, to have links going to the wrong topic.
I give an example. I created a disambiguation page for Ermelo (disambiguation). He simply reverts me, claims that the one in the Netherlands is the primary topic. Why is the Ermelo with more inhabitants and a larger surrounding area less important? And if one uses "What links here" it shows that lots of the links that point to Ermelo actually are meant to refer to the Ermelo in South Africa. Lots of wrong links.
But the wrong links, coming from South African articles and pointing to Ermelo with content re-instated by JaGa to be Netherlands content, these wrong links do not appear on his control panels. So it does not bother him so much. He prefers wrong links over having a disambiguation page and so his control panels look good.
And then he tries to drive out of the project those users that think different or to convert them to his beliefs. He could not convert Schwyz. Schwyz left. I don't know about TakakaCounty, an account that just got blocked without further investigations, and strangely the abandoned account received a block too. An abandoned account! Nothing else to do?
TigreTiger (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
- Clerk note: I've moved the case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TigreTiger to here. TakakaCounty was previously blocked as a duck. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
01 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- TigreTiger (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- TTsecondary (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- TTtertiary (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- TTquaternary (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tiraios-of-Characene (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061
Previous sockpuppet investigations linked the "TigreTiger" account to the "Schwyz" account. He is now trolling the ANI board, screaming "admin abuse." The socks are blocked, but I hope at this point that a rangeblock is warranted. This guy is just causing problems. PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Evidence submitted by Dpmuk
Post-report note: My comments all relate to User:Tiraios-of-Characene - this isn't terribly clear following the merge.
Previous dormant user has started editing again since Schwyz's latest sock (TigreTiger) got blocked. Extremely similar pattern of moves of geography related articles both before and after this user's extended break. Noticeably the two editors have never overlapped in their editing:
- Schwyz edited from 00:05, 22 March 2010 to 15:51, 23 March 2010
- Tiraios edited from 18:38, 25 March 2010 to 20:26, 25 March 2010
- Schwyz edited from 18:04, 26 March 2010 to 12:33, 28 March 2010
- Tiraios edited from 17:15, 28 March 2010 to 13:09, 7 April 2010
- Long break (possibly more socks?)
- Schwyz from 20:41, 22 July 2010 to 11:10, 13 August 2010
- Other known socks of Schwyz - last blocked at 07:45, 30 October 2010
- Tiraios starts up again at 19:23, 1 November 2010
Personally given the age of this account I think a check-user could help confirm it although it's pretty quacky to me. As I suspect there may be other accounts out there it may also pick up other socks - especially if this account uses another machine with a different IP. Dpmuk (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Dpmuk (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
Another slew of edits left in the wake of this latest sock which all need rolling back and I don't have Twinkle...yet. This guy had the nerve to accuse me of admin abuse while he continues to break every rule in the book. If a ban isn't warranted here, I don't know what would warrant one. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Clerk endorsed: decision on whether to block the underlying IP/s referred to checkuser discretion. SpitfireTally-ho! 09:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. J.delanoygabsadds 02:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- All users listed above already blocked, no users remain, closing. Nakon 07:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
02 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- TerraCognita (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
This user's second contribution ever is to immediately come to the defense of a sock of the indefinitely blocked master the thread is about. Since this account was created in 2009, and has had a year of inactivity before jumping straight into this thread about socks, it seems to be a sleeper account. CU is thus required to see if there are any other undiscovered sleepers on that range. I would like to add that their other account, the one they list in their third edit ever was created at roughly the same time as this, and has shown no contributions which would make it apparent they would have found the above linked thread. No talk contributions from others, no userspace modifications. Nothing. They have also begun to do the same thing the other socks were doing; claiming admin abuse by PMDrive. — Dædαlus Contribs 21:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
On top of that, for their sixth contribution ever, their first contribution into mainspace, they went straight to an article talk page created by the master account, which this case is filed under. I believe it is patently obvious this is a sleeper account now, and should be blocked per WP:DUCK, with CU brought in to check for other under-the-radar sleepers.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
Seems the user has been blocked per WP:DUCK already; that exchange at ANI was really annoying. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Confirmed, no sleepers, underlying range already blocked. –MuZemike 23:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
06 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- TurkChan (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Catanzaro (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Dpmuk
TurckChan - Previous dormant account (for nearly two years) that started editing again a few days after the last known sock was blocked. Is now making very similar moves of geography based articles. Given the age of the account, and the fact that moves aren't the only thing this account has been doing I think a CU would be useful to confirm. Dpmuk (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Dpmuk (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Catanzaro - Second action on wikipedia is to start a requested move very similar to the moves made by Schywz and his socks, and with very similar reasoning as well. Tenth edit was to post to ANI in support of one of Schwyz's other socks. Only started editing after TurkChan got a duck block. Given this user's actions I' confident they're not a newbie and another Schwyz sock seems likely. Dpmuk (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Auto-generated every six hours.
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
Certainly looks worthy of a WP:DUCK check. Check out the forty-some moves by TurkChan compared to the 200+ moves by recently banned sock TigreTiger. Rapid fire, undiscussed geo moves from an account that was only recently reactivated.
BTW, could someone check this quickly? Schwyz does a lot of damage in a short amount of time, so if this is Schwyz and the SPI sits around for a week or so, we'll have another huge pagemove mess on our hands. --JaGatalk 11:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- NOTE - User:Schwyz was never blocked for his editing. He was only blocked after he left. This all seems to be a personal paranoia of User:JaGa and User:Dpmuk. JaGa engages in defamation with saying Schwyz does a lot of damage in a short amount of time. He provided no diffs for this claim of his. This is defamation against User:Schwyz done by User:JaGa. TurkChan (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like you are Schwyz, all right. --JaGatalk 12:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's odd how these guys who "aren't Schwyz" nevertheless feel compelled to defend him so vigorously. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's odd that JaGa libels User:Schwyz, an account never blocked for its edits. TurkChan (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that TurkChan won't deny he's been socking during his 2-year editing gap. Seems like a sock sleeper sweep is needed here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe sleeper checks have been done with the previous CUs, however I believe the problem is that these accounts are "stale" from a CU perspective (i.e. the information needed for a CU has been deleted) hence there's no way to find sleepers this old until they start editing again. Dpmuk (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Roger. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe sleeper checks have been done with the previous CUs, however I believe the problem is that these accounts are "stale" from a CU perspective (i.e. the information needed for a CU has been deleted) hence there's no way to find sleepers this old until they start editing again. Dpmuk (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's odd how these guys who "aren't Schwyz" nevertheless feel compelled to defend him so vigorously. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like you are Schwyz, all right. --JaGatalk 12:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Administrator note TurkChan blocked by LessHeard_vanU; leaving case open as in my (non-clerk) view a checkuser is probably still a good idea to check for sleepers. ~ mazca talk 13:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Catanzaro also blocked; another obvious sock but potentially worth a checkuser to see if there's anything more we can do to stop this. ~ mazca talk 13:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I turned up one account as a Confirmed match: TrackConnect (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). The relevant range already appears blocked. TNXMan 19:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Administrator note I blocked TrackConnect, and I'm going to archive this one so we can deal with the case below. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I turned up one account as a Confirmed match: TrackConnect (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). The relevant range already appears blocked. TNXMan 19:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Catanzaro also blocked; another obvious sock but potentially worth a checkuser to see if there's anything more we can do to stop this. ~ mazca talk 13:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
07 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- TrueColour (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Dpmuk
This one is really stale so going to have to rely on behaviour alone although to me it's incredibly duck like. The especially telling bits to me are:
- Very similar moves with very similar reasoning to moves by User:TurkChan a known sock, e.g. TrueColour and TurkChan.
- Very similar moves to User:TigreTiger (another known sock) swapping the name of a Lake and the word Lake e.g. TrueColour and TigreTiger
- TurkChan repeated a first done by TrueColour and later reverted - TrueColour and TurkChan
- There are more similarities there as well that anyone that's familiar with this case should spot.
P.S. Started this as entirely new entry as the above case is pretty much closed out. Dpmuk (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Auto-generated every six hours.
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
Here's TrueColour getting in trouble for renaming a bunch of mountain article without consensus. Here he is getting in trouble for unilateral Portuguese article moves. Duck. --JaGatalk 02:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
This sock is showing the same naming pattern that the previous socks have had; TT, TC, etc.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Just to confirm what Dpmuk said - this account is Stale, so you'll need to use behavior to draw any connections. TNXMan 15:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Administrator note Looks like a duck. As such, blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 16:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: Merged WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz per this request --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
18 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- Transnistriei (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Dpmuk
Recently created user (since last socks were blocked). Similar move proposals here with similar reasoning. There was no need to list them as they could have made the move themselves so I suspect this is an attempt to avoid JaGa's tool by getting someone else to make the moves. Yes, it could be a new user making a mistake but I regularly check WP:RM and haven't seen anyone make this mistake before. Also here they make a comment that they'd like moves to be made that are even more similar to the socks recent style but they haven't done anything about it (again possible to avoid detection). Both the collection of socks and this new user have been adding / removing categories from country sub-division articles. Both this user here and one of the previous socks here have edited telephone articles. In this edit swaps the word "river" and the rivers name around - very similar to this move by a sock and similar to lots of similar moves concerning lakes. Asking for check user to link to the other newer accounts as even if someone is willing to do this on behaviour alone we haven't detected any socks for a while so it's likely there could be sleepers. Dpmuk (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Auto-generated every six hours.
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Confirmed and IP blocked TNXMan 12:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Administrator note Blocked and tagged. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
18 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- TheCalbuco (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Muchness
Another stale account (hasn't edited since January 2010); I'm filing this just for the sake of getting all prior sock accounts on record, and because the puppetmaster has a history of reactivating dormant accounts (e.g. User:TurkChan). Based on editing patterns this looks like a duck situation - the account was created a few days after confirmed sock User:TrueColour's 3RR block and was used primarily as a single-purpose account continuing TrueColour's disambiguation-related edits. Reviews of Calbuco (disambiguation) revision history and TheCalbuco's talk page contributions show duck-like similarities in editing patterns, areas of interest and prose style. Muchness (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Auto-generated every six hours.
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
I'd say this edit, where the user defends TrueColour, another Tobias sock, could be the smoking gun. --JaGatalk 17:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Since this account is stale, I'll go ahead and mark this for close. This will be added to the archive, so we'll have a note of it in case this account re-activates. Please refile if something else comes up. TNXMan 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
18 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- Trans-Dniestr (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Elen of the Roads
same move requests as User:Transnistriei (CU confirmed sock), extreme evasiveness on talk page consistent with sock laughing up its sleeve Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Auto-generated every six hours.
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Way ahead of you. :) Confirmed:
- Trans-Dniestr (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Transdniestria (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- IP blocked TNXMan 23:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: Everything looks done here. Marking for close. Elockid (Talk) 02:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
22 January 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- TopoChecker (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Extremely similar move requests, page creations etc. These are largely based on geography and seem to be trying to introduce uniformity in an extremely similar way to Schwyz and his socks. Asking for check user to a) be on the same side and b) to check for sleeps although I suspect this may not be possible as previous users may be stale. Dpmuk (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Dpmuk (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Clerk endorsed - There's a great deal of overlap between TopoChecker and Tobias, particularly on the "Time in" articles. Endorsing a CU against previously confirmed socks, including Trans-Dniestr (talk · contribs). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Administrator note Blocked and tagged. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
31 January 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- TopoChecker (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Country subdivision (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
The orphaned article Country subdivision was written by banned User:Tobias Conradi before his 2007 indefinite block. His (recently blocked) sock-puppet User:TopoChecker showed up in This section of WP:NCGN, advocating a use of country subdivision in the guideline. On looking into the matter, the article read to me like a POV fork of Administrative division and I put it up for AfD; we'll see what happens. Now a single-purpose account (his only edits have been to edit that article, insert the term in other articles, and to defend those edits on talk-pages) has shown up since TopoChecker's indefinite block, and has not commented on the AFD (which has been tagged the whole time), while using edit summaries for most of his edits, including the first three. Is this a newbie?
Coincidence? Possibly. But Checkuser will tell us.
(I have not notified Country subdivision; if this report is positive, he is the sock-puppet of a banned user; if negative, there is no need to raise the issue; I have no objection if somebody else does.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Adding the CU per request. This is highly suspicious, but I'm not entirely convinced it's Conradi. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Likely that Country subdivision (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the same as TopoChecker (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), all things considered. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Administrator note Blocked and tagged. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
03 March 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Chihuahua State (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
User "Chihuahua State" appeared on Feb 1st with his first edit being to redirect Chihuahua State and Chihuahua (State) to "Chihuahua (state)"[3]. He has since been trying to move other states in Mexico to the same format [4] [5] and [6]. Thats all fine and dandy, but his edit summaries and other behavior suggest he's not a new user. A previous sock of Tobais Conradi, the now blocked TopoChecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), tried on January 16th to move "Chihuahua" to "Chihuahua (state)"[7] and was discovered/blocked in the process. But his edit history is full of a litany of other similar moves involving how articles about states are displayed. I find it suspect that a "new user"'s VERY first edits are to correct the redirect pages of an article that a sockpuppet was working on when it was blocked. Chihuahua's edit history also is not typical of a new user -- making page moves or opening page move requests (including using page move templates on talk pages[8] -- all within his first 200 edits. A glance at the edit history of both TopoChecker and Chihuahua State seems to satisfy "WP:Duck" since both of them seem to make a number of efforts to move articles from "Fooian" to "Fooian (state)" and both have made attempts at moving Mexican States to that format...(TopoChecker: January 17th and earlier) (Chihuahua State: current) -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 03:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Comment - For being a "new user" Chihuahua State knows a lot about how to use Wikipedia, including complex procedures as moving pages and nominating pages for move. Edit pattern is consistent in several pages with Tobias Conradi. More importantly, his edit pattern seems to follow the unfinished work of another confirmed sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi by the name TopoChecker who was recently blocked at the end of January.
Reportedly, by the time the confirmed sockpuppet TopoChecker was blocked, he was in the middle of moving the article Chihuahua to Chihuahua (state) so it seems that the chosen user name "Chihuahua State" is for irony. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 06:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Administrator note Per these two edits, along with other behavioral evidence, I've blocked and tagged the account as a sock. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
27 April 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- TrackConversion (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Ignoring consensus & attempts to discuss at WT:TWP. Editing a number of same pages as sock TrackConnect. And many of the previous Tobias Conradi socks have used the TxxxCxxx name formats. David Biddulph (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- As one of the editors that has dealt a lot with this sock master in the past I would see this quacks enough that I'm confident it's them. Could we also have a sleeper check - they've found things before and I've been worried for a while now that a new sock hadn't turned up for some time so I suspect there may be some others out there. Dpmuk (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Clerk endorsed - (Please contact me in two days if no CU has acted on it yet). NW (Talk) 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The following are Confirmed:
- Madreselva (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- TruckCard (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- King County (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- NCGN (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- बडवानी (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- PeruLibre (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- PeterFriedrichsen (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- IGrewUpWithMaps (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Campeche (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Prelatures (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Time in Russia (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- GRprefectures-have-been-dissolved (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- DABmaster (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- TAG-A-b10 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- PeaceMarcher (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- NuclearEnergy (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- CarlPihl (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tabasco State (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- TripolitaniaFezzan (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- DougieM1 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- EisenbahnTechniker (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I have also blocked the IP range. Dominic·t 03:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Awaiting administrative action For the load. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Administrator note I've blocked the lot and am in the process of tagging. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
29 April 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- TellSI (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Blatant sock of banned user Tobias Conradi, picking up the "rail gauge metrification" campaign at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, which was started by his recently blocked sock user:TrackConversion Da.squirrels (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Confirmed, along with TigerCarl (talk · contribs). TNXMan 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Administrator note Both blocked and tagged. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
17 May 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
IP sock continuing the tenditious edits at List of rail gauges started by his previous sock TrackConversion Da.squirrels (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
CheckUser is not for fishing is applicable here, close please. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 18:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please note this does not qualify as "fishing", which is defined as "performing a check on accounts where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry". Da.squirrels has presented evidence indicating what they believe to be a link between the IP and previously blocked accounts. While checkusers generally do not disclose connections between IPs and named accounts, the case can still be reviewed by an admin. TNXMan 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Is a CU really necessary here, or the information gathered by it in any way useful? I mean, if an IP or account behaves disruptive (which to me seems to be the case here), why bother which sock farm or which blocked user it actually is? Block it and done it is. If the IP is dynamic (which doesn't seem to be the case here), bad luck, you can't block it forever, but you can block it for a period of time and then the disruption will either go on with another IP or not. (Of course you could do a range block then, but it's not worth it, usually.) I sometimes have the impression that you guys make yourself way too much work... This is like hunting quails with a bazooka. ;) --Thogo (Talk) 14:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC) (p.s. this is intended more for the requester rather than the CU folks, btw.)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Marking for close. TNXMan 17:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
26 May 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Chaldias (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
WP:DUCK: new account who starts by editing administrative divisions articles, i.e. Byzantine themes and Egyptian nomes. Clearly a sock, and consistent behaviour with previous incarnations as he started creating categories and useless stubs for each of these divisions. Also interested in railways. Constantine ✍ 16:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Cplakidas / Constantine - Why are you reverting a useful edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theme_(Byzantine_district)&diff=next&oldid=431001380 ?
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- There were sleepers last time, so endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Confirmed the following are the similar:
- Chaldias (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- TOCS2011 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- CatBoss (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- TellSI (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 18:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Administrator note All blocked and tagged. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
30 May 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Krontach (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Brand new user, already deep into disruptive and POINTy edits with a number of other editors. See user talk and Talk:Diesel engine for starters.
The editing style, of an account appearing from nowhere and then going straight off on a disruptive single-issue crusade through a very narrow technical topic is classic TC editing style. Note the obsessions with replacing two stroke by two cycle - a term that is arguably correct, but way short of WP:COMMONNAME. Also his insistence, to the level of threatened disruption, for capiitalising 'Diesel' in 'diesel engine'. The username also capitalises as "KT", which is close enough to TC's favoured and distinctive use of capitals to make me suspicious. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Clerk endorsed - Hmm... I'm not sure about this one. We ran a check a few days ago and this account didn't come up. I'll endorse, but I'm skeptical. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing really left to do. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
07 August 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Bogdan Nagachop (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
The account, created June 14, 2011, began a massive page move campaign, with over 800 page moves in the last month. The focus on making the titles of geographic and language articles consistent, along with a failure to seek consensus before performing mass moves (this "Please stop" section is classic Tobias style), gave me a strong enough WP:DUCK impression to request a checkuser. JaGatalk 15:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@"Please stop" section is classic Tobias style
- What do you mean by that? The section heading was actually created by SpacemanSpiff [9].
@massive page move campaign
- Do you know that India has 640,000+ villages? What I moved is nothing, others performed the same moves.
@failure to seek consensus
- Places: I brought place naming up at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_.28India.29. Consensus (4:1 voting) was established at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India).
- Lately 7 India related moves were put through WP:RM: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related topics#Place name clean up - move approval requests - And all went through.
- Scripts: See WT:NCWS, I reverted some moves that Kwami did perform, this is under his agreement too.
@focus on making the titles of geographic and language articles consistent
- Languages: I am not involved, maybe you mean scripts? See 4:0 agreement on WT:NCWS.
- Making names consistent? What is wrong with that?
- If you have problems with some moves, please name the pages.
Maybe you read a little bit too much into your move statistics?
Please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims - I wonder whether this is a bad faith attempt to go through with some reverting moves/edits you performed in the last hours: [10], [11] [12], [13]. Maybe you are also angry because I brought up the BIAS issue? What is your real problem? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- It's possible, so I'm endorsing to clarify. I think some Tobias socks should still be viable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's Likely that Bogdan Nagachop (talk · contribs) and HawaiiLibre (talk · contribs) are the same as Chaldias (talk · contribs). TNXMan 13:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
10 August 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- SIA-Populated places in India (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
New user makes one huge edit supporting the action of proven socks, seems to know all of the backstory and where to post. Sitush (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Everybody can read the "backstory". And of course the post had to be made to the WikiProject India noticeboard since Crusoe8181 and SpacemanSpiff are mass deleting content that Bogdan created, irrespective of the value to the encyclopedia. This is violating the Wikipedia primary goal. SIA-Populated places in India (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- SIA-Populated places in India (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Confirmed as Tobias. TNXMan 15:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- How can you "confirm" that? Did you speak with any of the editors in person? Do you have a Trojan horse installed? What spy tools is the Wikimedia Foundation using? User:Tobias_Conradi has his last edit in July 2009 - how can you confirm an account as being Tobias? SIA-Populated places in India (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Translation: please tell me how to trick CheckUser. --JaGatalk 17:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think you performed a transformation, but if you are interested in avoiding some parts of what a CheckUser may include you may like to try: http://panopticlick.eff.org/. Another "translation" is: Is the Wikimedia Foundation posting false claims about a living person? SIA-Populated places in India (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Translation: please tell me how to trick CheckUser. --JaGatalk 17:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- How can you "confirm" that? Did you speak with any of the editors in person? Do you have a Trojan horse installed? What spy tools is the Wikimedia Foundation using? User:Tobias_Conradi has his last edit in July 2009 - how can you confirm an account as being Tobias? SIA-Populated places in India (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Reopen this case. Just what did Editor do to deserve permanent ban?
Wikipedia is an amateur organisation (in terms of content / banning editors etc). The facts are that one amateur editor (styled Tobias Conradi) was banned by another editor. Amateurs makinsg decisions about fellow amateurs. This is not some High Court where proper procedures re followed. We should be humble and acknowledge this. I don't know what exactly Tobias Conradi did IN THE BEGINNING to get banned....but was it really so bad? Itis hardly surprising he or she has been involved in so called "sock puppeting" since then. After all, he had no alternative....He was banned! I don't dont know the Editor in question. I have no connections. I came across this because I was leading a discussion re Dominion of India and Tobias Conradi tried to participate but what he said was deleted...Believe me, the quality of discussion there is very low. Not many editors are involved. I welcome more editors and would like to hear what Tobias Conradi has to contribute on the discussion. Give him a chance to contribute again. Wikipedia is really weak these days...so few editors and so many that just make lazy contributions. Tobias Conradi has been banned for a long long time.....Its time to let him back into Wikipedia and give him a no strings attached chance to participate. Censoring him and this permanent "gagging" is really undemocratic....and unfair given he was banned by a fellow amateur....Other editors have asked these questions above.....Its time to stop this permanent tarring of some one who seems to want to contribute.....and WP needs contributors! NelsonSudan (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)