Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Orchomen

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

02 November 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Sockmaster has reportedly wikistalked several editors, including myself, Amaury, IJBall and Callmemirela, getting into revert wars by reinstating an edit reverted by any of us, particularly at The Thundermans on October 16. IJBall has been the most wikistalked of the editors, and can bring up more of a history concerning the sockmaster, who is indef blocked. As for User:Lochagos, their edit summary at Paradise Run here (in reverting a revert by Amaury) is similar in tone and style to this one at The Thundermans here (in reverting a revert by Callmemirela).

After the sockmaster Orchomen was blocked on October 16, they used numerous IP addresses to continue reverting at articles that IJBall, Amaury, Callmemirela or myself had recently edited, which went on for at least a day or two afterward, simply to spite their being blocked. There's more documentation about this on Amaury's talk page User talk:Amaury/2016#Orchomen (and continued at User talk:Amaury#Orchomen (continued)) as well as in the archive of BU Rob13's talk page User talk:BU Rob13/Archive 5#User:Orchomen IP socks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

This is pretty much a WP:DUCK case, but a look at User:Lochagos' contrib. history and User:Orchomen's contrib. history shows a strong overlap: TV-related articles (esp. those related to Disney Channel or Nickelodeon shows), and historical topics (esp. Rome and Greece). I don't think it's a coincidence... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

20 November 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Behavior pattern strongly indicates that this is Orchomen evading their block and sock puppeteering once again under a different IP than usual, likely in an attempt to throw us off. Their usual IPs locate to the UAE while this one locates to the UK; however, that doesn't mean it's not them as I remember MPFitz1968 saying one of their IPs in the initial attack when everything first went down located to Australia.

The original stalkee is IJBall, who can provide a bit more background if needed, and then it all escalated from there when he requested my assistance and Michael, Callmemirela, and myself all got majorly involved with this serial sock puppet. BU Rob13 has been with us from the very beginning and has been a huge help and KrakatoaKatie has also been helping us and has also been a huge help. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • While this IP doesn't Geolocate to UEA, the behvaioral pattern is the same as Orchomen's before: overwhelming interest on "grammar" copyedits (only some of which can probably be considered "correct"), along with contribution stalking of editors such as Amaury and myself. This edit to Travis Willingham is particularly telling as it is an obscure topic to edit, and was made within a hour of my reversion of another IP editor at the same article, and was made within a few hours of Amaury posting concerns about this IP to my Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]


21 November 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Obvious Orchomen is obvious. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:52, 21 November 2016 (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 December 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Heavy intersection at one of Orchomen's socks main topic areas (The Arabian/Persian Gulf naming dispute) [1] [2] [3] [4], restoring sock edits: [5] [6], stalking editors who warn them: [7] [8] [9], and an overall edit-warrior battleground mentality very reminiscent of past socks. Sro23 (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2016 (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 December 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User:Asbo23 made disruptive edits on talk page of another confirmed sock: User:Ahahahahahahahahaha, then made edits on master's favorite article: Barbarians Rising. It's editing history shows that user edited mostly on User talk:Ahahahahahahahahaha, so  It looks like a duck to me Diffs: [10], [11] [12] --Stylez995 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Bbb23 Please consider taking away talk page access for these socks. Sro23 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bbb23, talk page abuse is especially happening at User talk:Barryssister. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might a temporary range block be possible? Otherwise, it might just be best to semi-protect any previously-targeted articles, and leave the talk pages alone per DENY. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

18 December 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

94.205.165.179 is a fairly obvious WP:DUCK: [13] The Thracian has been restoring this IP's edits ([14] [15]), shares the interest in Emirati subject matter ([16] [17]) and similar stalking of editors he's been in conflict with before ([18] [19] [20]). Sro23 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2016 (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 December 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK First entry in talk page of User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen [21]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC) MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed it's a similar name to one reported in the December 10, 2016 report. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Amaury is requesting speedy deletion of the aforementioned talk page, I will post the comment left by User:Hiagaineverybody23 on that page in case it becomes inaccessible: This list is really handy for keeping track of which proxies I've already used. Thanks guys! MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2016 (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 RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Already blocked as a sockpuppet by Zzuuzz. Just wanted to see if this was indeed Orchomen or someone else who doesn't like me, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:24, 22 December 2016 (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]
  • Nothing to be done here. A CU isn't going to be run on a duck. There was a very recent sleeper check, so another one of those seems unnecessary. It's not always important to know who the sockmaster was. Closing. ~ Rob13Talk 15:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


01 January 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I was holding off on filing an SPI because nothing immediately screamed sockpuppet at first, but I believe I now have sufficient evidence that this is Orchomen simply trying a new tactic to try to throw us off their trail. See Caedite eos' latest edit summary over on List of The Thundermans episodes which is similar in tone to that of Orchomen as well as their message on my talk page accusing me of making threats, though I did not, which is also similar in tone to that of Orchomen. Also see User talk:IJBall#Re: Caedite eos for interaction reports between Orchomen and Caedite eos as well as between our group and Caedite eos. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I don't know what all this is about but you were threatening me. You kept posting threatening to revoke my editing privileges repeatedly over a simple grammar correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caedite eos (talk • contribs) 07:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Caedite eos is  Possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not seeing enough to make a purely behavioral block yet, but this allegation isn't totally without substance. If additional behavioral similarities emerge, please feel free to report again. ~ Rob13Talk 00:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08 January 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orchomen/Archive and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amaury/List_of_accounts_and_IPs_used_by_Orchomen Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:23, 8 January 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]
IP isn't editing anymore, closing. GABgab 16:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 January 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Clear case of WP:DUCK. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

May I request checking for sleepers? MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

15 January 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK, alluding to the list Amaury has been compiling regarding the sockmaster in this edit in Amaury's sandbox. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Used the oldest trick in the Wikipedia book of making 10 nonsense edits in their userspace to get to autoconfirmed status (see their contributions, account was already at least 4 days old). Brilliant! MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 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]

14 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Summaries are pretty much similar in tone, it's obvious it's Orchomen. It's also pretty obvious it's them based on the fact that the only articles they've edited thus far—I expect to be reverted—are articles I'm watching. Coincidence? I don't think so. (I know you're currently no longer admin, but still pinging you, BU Rob13. Also pinging MPFitz1968, IJBall, and Callmemirela.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now been reverted. Yup. Definitely them. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:09, 14 February 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]

14 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Obvious sock. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:21, 14 February 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]


15 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Username is a dead giveaway that this is a sock. See User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen#Accounts Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious case of WP:DUCK Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added Crat the black, another good hand account. The same contribution-stalking users he's been in conflict with in the past via minor copyedits. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] There's also the shared interest in obscure UAE topics [28] [29] [30] [31] Sro23 (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just making a note that Crat the Black has been blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist. (Thank you!) That just leaves one for the February 15 listings. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:45, 20 February 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]

I have blocked User:Barrysdriver for expressive quacking. Lectonar (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, closing. GABgab 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Sole edit is the creation of User talk:Barryschicken with the content "Amaury Sro23." BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Not constructive. GABgab 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@IJBall and Amaury: Please be aware that while sock puppets are not tolerated, neither are personal attacks per WP:NPA, also a policy, and if you continue with such immature behaviour, you will be reported. Alex|The|Whovian? 17:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please use some judgement here, AlexTheWhovian. --NeilN talk to me 17:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Judgement is not an issue. Professionalism is. Alex|The|Whovian? 17:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - and you've also unnecessarily scolded the wrong editor. --NeilN talk to me 17:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, because you don't like a person, it gives you the right to personally attack them? Great editing. Luckily I'm not the only person with this view. Alex|The|Whovian? 17:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sro23 left a friendly, non-template, and non-aggressive note. You basically just went at us right from the get-go. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because your actions were so much sweeter. Give to others what you expect to be given back to you. Alex|The|Whovian? 17:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said use some judgement. A mild jab at best, responded to with a chuckle. Threatening to report for this probably means you should be adjusting your sense of perspective. --NeilN talk to me 17:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, Alex. I think you need you need take a breather. You've just 180'd this conversation. We've been dealing with this user for months. A few slip-ups will come up. However, it is truly unnecessary to go on to threaten long-standing editors of reporting them. A simple friendly note would just be fine. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And they shall continue to attack every editor they disagree with, given their backing by an administrator. That's great. Great editing. Amazing teamwork. Alex|The|Whovian? 17:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think that's enough. Please move on. This isn't helping anyone. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you don't trust my judgment, Alex, and never have, but if you think I would go after a regular editor the way I'd go after a prolific harassing sockmaster like Orchomen, you really don't know me at all. But could we please get back to the matter at hand, which is an SPI report to look for sleepers? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

21 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

And here we go again. Several new accounts all reinstating sock User:Crat the black's edits. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] etc. Sro23 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 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]


22 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

re-instating sock edits [38] [39] Sro23 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 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]
 Looks like a duck to me. GABgab 03:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

[40] [41] Here's a new account complaining about how sock User:Brawlcoils's edits shouldn't have been reverted and the articles should not have been protected. WP:DUCK Sro23 (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Added Huffsrowel. Clear case of WP:DUCK. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added Grinsopium. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Savoysitar has been added. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added Cratelyons. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]


23 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK. See this comment on BU Rob13's talk page, with a reference to No. 2 Squadron RAF in their comment, which contains a bit of back and forth reverting involving at least one already confirmed sock [42][43]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:51, 23 February 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]

 Technically indistinguishable from other Orchomen socks, plus behavioural evidence. Blocked and tagged. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23 February 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

[44][45] Reverting deletion of messages by socks. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:42, 23 February 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]

06 March 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Their edit pattern of making (incorrect) grammar edits is the exact same as IP socks who previously edited that article. As such, I strongly feel this is Orchomen back at it again to cause trouble. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:55, 6 March 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]

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

31 March 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Noticed several new accounts restoring edits made by blocked sockpuppets. Some are obvious throwaways ([48] [49]) and others are little less obvious ([50] [51] [52] [53]). Other edits are very inconsequential grammar "corrections" that seem to match previous good-hand account behavior. [54] [55] [56] [57] All that's missing is the overlap/hounding of users Orchomen has been in disputes with in the past. CU request for needed sleeper check and also to confirm these suspicions. Sro23 (talk) 05:22, 31 March 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]


02 April 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

These sockpuppets keep removing the same information from Ed Jones (racing driver). [58] [59] Sro23 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


02 April 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same edit behavior as others on Ed Jones (racing driver). I'm thinking extended confirmed protection may be in order for that article. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:10, 2 April 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]

03 April 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:22, 3 April 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]

26 April 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK on Ed Jones (racing driver): [60] [61] [62] Please check for sleepers as this one is autoconfirmed already. Sro23 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 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]

11 May 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Call it a hunch. The editor seems to like racing drivers ([63] [64]) and we know from the history of Ed Jones (racing driver) that Orchomen is also probably a fan. Most of their edits appear to be grammar "fixes" ([65] [66]) just like Orchomen socks. In addition, the user randomly made this edit before self reverting. A look through that talk page's history reveals an Orchomen sock ([67]) talking to another disruptive IP about the usual users Orchomen dislikes. Sro23 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 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]


13 May 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:48, 13 May 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]

07 June 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Noticed this user on Ed Jones (racing driver); it's been demonstrated in the past that Orchomen seems to be a fan. Then I saw they were doing Orchomen's favorite typo-fixes ("compliment"→‎"complement"), compare [68] to [69], as well as other various grammar "fixes" [70]. Unfortunately this sock is going to require quite a bit of cleanup. Sro23 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08 June 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I was notified that the IP had reverted me, which consists of Orchomen's MO. Also, the IP geolocates to UAE, where most of Orchomen's IPs come from. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see their message posted on my talk page and later reverted by Amaury. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 11:37, 8 June 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]

CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


11 June 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The IP reverted me, consist with Orchomen's MO, and the IP geolocates to UAE. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt this is Orchomen. BU Rob13. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:03, 11 June 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]

18 July 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Here we go once again. It's another user intent on enforcing their interpretation of MOS:NICKNAME ([71] [72]) and being randomly hostile to other editors ([73]). Sro23 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 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]

19 July 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The user's contributions are all consistent with Orchomen's MO. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:02, 19 July 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]

20 July 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Again consistent with Orchomen's MO. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 11:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Is it possible for an edit filter be set up? I'm tired of getting pinged by this guy but don't want to disable the ability to mention me altogether. Sro23 (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 11:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have a better chance of getting a knowledgeable answer at WP:EF/R. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone at SPI with knowledge of Orchomen please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled? Orchomen is known for socks such as Barryscousin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Barryssister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen), and considering a likely IP sock of Orchomen just reverted Drmies at the other SPI, I can't think that this is a coincidence... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pinging BU Rob13 and KrakatoaKatie. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem rather odd that Orchomen found that SPI page minus the main SPI page. Perhaps they are the true sockmaster? I believe it was you IJBall who thought Orchomen was a sock of somebody? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 20:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)s[reply]
Well, Barryispuzzled reportedly edited articles related to Shakespeare and astrophysics, and that's not exactly Orchomen's cup of tea. I agree that the sock names are similar and all, but the behavior doesn't quite match up. Katietalk 02:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

30 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

It's been firmly established Orchomen is a big Ed Jones (racing driver) fan, which is where I first noticed this account. One of Orchomen's favorite tasks was to remove hypocorisms from article ledes [74] [75], so when I saw this user doing the exact same thing [76] [77], I knew it was him. Sro23 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Not the foggiest what you're on about.Craic Den (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

12 November 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This account has been supporting or restoring the last sock (Craic Den)'s edits on more than one occasion ([78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]). Like many previous sockpuppets, there is a noticeable focus on removing hypocorisms ([84] [85]). Sro23 (talk) 08:50, 12 November 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]

12 November 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK - [86] [87] Sro23 (talk) 18:02, 12 November 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]

23 November 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK. Typical "undo" Orchomen behavior and restored an edit on I Am Frankie made by one of Orchomen's previous, but now blocked, socks: Craic Den Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:25, 23 November 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 December 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

It's long been established Orchomen's a fan of Ed Jones (racing driver). Noticed a new user trying and failing to copyedit that article, so I took a look at their contribs and saw them doing one of Orchomen's favorite maintenance tasks-removing hypocorisms from leads: [88] [89] Sro23 (talk) 18:04, 21 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]

22 December 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK. Barry family. See User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:49, 22 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]

26 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I believe this is Orchomen's static IP. Geolocation and behavior match up.

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 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Noticed a new user (who previously had made zero edits to Victor Menezes) file Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goodsearchlight, which I thought was odd. In the past Orchomen sockpuppets had revert warred with the Goodsearchlight sockfarm on that article ([90] [91]). Also noticed that they edited an obscure article creation by an Orchomen sock ([92] [93]). It's been established that removing hypocorisms from article ledes is one of Orchomen's favorite maintenance tasks, and this account engages in that too ([94] [95]). When I saw the user showing interest in the Persian Gulf naming dispute, it basically confirmed my suspicions ([96] [97]). Quack quack. Sro23 (talk) 16:22, 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.

Good point. I’ll make sure to use IPs to file sock reports in the future. xxHeliotom (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 March 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Clear WP:DUCK case here. Notice on Becky G they replaced American with Emirari, and we all know Orchomen and their IPs originate in the UAE. Ping BU Rob 13 as he is very familiar with this sock. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Messed up the ping above. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:49, 27 March 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]
@Bbb23: There was also Parryometric and the sleepers Barrys butchers dog and Barrys butchers cat which I blocked as the same group. I intuited that there was likely an older master, but wasn't familiar with this one so I didn't make the connection.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21 November 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

If their edits weren't enough, they've now self-admitted here. Amaury • 18:43, 21 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]

19 February 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Quacking on Haya bint Hussein ([98] [99]), Claire Lehmann ([100] [101]), and attempting to delete First Lady of Dubai ([102] [103]) for the second time. Will block/tag in a moment, filing only for record. Sro23 (talk) 22:12, 19 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]

02 April 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This is about the fourth sockpuppet of Orchomen's to pop up today. It would be appreciated if a check for other sleepers could be performed. Thanks. Amaury • 05:05, 2 April 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. There's a few other socks already blocked today, which I'm not going to bother listing or tagging. There's also a few IP blocks currently in place. More might be possible, but for now  No sleepers immediately visible. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 June 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Sigh. Here we have another sock with an interest in Ancient Rome ([104] [105], [106] [107]), battleships ([108], [109]), and of course, racing drivers ([110], [111]). Already blocked, requesting CU for any missed accounts. Sro23 (talk) 20:49, 27 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]

14 November 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Familiar interest in ancient Greece/Rome. Same fixation on MOS:BCE as the last sockpuppet blocked (see [112] and [113]). "New user" referencing a discussion started by the last sockpuppet and supporting its view (e.g. [114] vs [115]). Pretty obviously a sock, so I have blocked. Given this account has been around since June, it would be a good idea to check for any other missed accounts. Sro23 (talk) 08:01, 14 November 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]

08 August 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Just for the record. I'd rather not say the evidence here because I'm concerned he's changing up his editing patterns based on the SPI archive. Admins are free to email me if he appeals. I'm sure there are various hidden accounts sleeping right now too, but whatever. Sro23 (talk) 17:20, 8 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]

10 August 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


An SPA that has targeted the same victim as every other one of his socks [[116]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 10 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]

12 September 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This account caught my attention because it reverted to a version previously instated by Pipsally. [117] Like previous socks (Pipsally, Perdikos, Blackumbra, etc.), Owlof has an interest in Ancient Rome. [118] [119] [120] Both Pipsally and Owlof use the phrase "change to" in their edit summaries. [121] [122] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:50, 12 September 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]

24 October 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Outed by their rival sockmaster; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnGotten (permalink). Continuing their long-running sock edit-war at Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this ES is duckily similar to those by Orchomen sox' in the article's history (ctrl+f "consensus").

CU requested to be sure and due to history of sleepers. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:42, 24 October 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]

This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of their training as a clerk. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on their talk page or on this page.

29 November 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]
  1. 2021/11/25 edit by Lirae22 adding 'sexist' to Karen (slang)
  2. 2021/10/11 edit by Ingvario adding the same
  3. 2022/11/24 edit by Lirae 22 to the infobox of Sweden, placing the Speaker of Riksdag above the Prime Minister
  4. 2021/06/28 edit by Pipsally making the same infobox change

I think it's unlikely that this account, created a week after Ingvario's block, would coincidentally restore Orchomen-sock edits on two such disparate articles. Pinging Comradeka, who has accused Lirae22 of being an Ingvario sock. Firefangledfeathers 18:46, 29 November 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]

01 December 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]
  1. reverting to a Lirae22 edit
  2. reverting to a Lirae22 edit
  3. restoring talk page comments by Ingvario
  4. A bunch of edits hounding Comradeka, who was in a dispute with Ingvario and publicly called out Lirae22 as a sock: [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], and [129]

Orchomen appears to back editing from one IPv4 (Special:Contributions/31.219.85.253) and a dynamic set of IPv6s in the Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1F33:3909:2:1:14D:66DC/32 range. There are definitely some recent edits by unrelated users in that 32 range, but I don't know if it's possible to capture the problematic edits in any tighter range. Firefangledfeathers 04:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Comradeka, who's getting the worst of it right now. Firefangledfeathers 04:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23: understood. What can I do to help whac? Is it worth it to list individual IPv6s or /64s here? Firefangledfeathers 03:13, 2 December 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]

06 December 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IPs geolocate to the UAE, Orchomen's favorite place. Amaury • 18:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

The IPs are obvious Orchomen socks. Their sudden appearance at CreecregofLife's edit war at Gabby Duran & the Unsittables is peculiar. Firefangledfeathers 18:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They came in just as the communications were clearer and getting calmer. Admittedly I nearly reverted them (which probably wouldn't have leaned favorably about edit warring) as their edits were only making things worse.--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable. On a deeper look, it's possible the Orchomen sock IPs were following Escape Orbit to the conflict, who was recently involved in reverting some sock edits. Firefangledfeathers 18:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I registered about a week ago after about 2 months of anonymous editing (got over 1000 edits. I still use those edits as a resource because I jump around so much on what to tackle. I know I’m certainly not in the UAE--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It could well be this and CreecregofLife simply has got caught up in it. Their edits don't appear to be in any way similar. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This one is pretty obvious, with the account making the same edits as a previous blocked sock ([130] [131]), ([132] [133]) etc. CU is requested in case there are any other missed accounts. Sro23 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2023 (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]

07 June 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Respelling of Gugrak, an already tagged suspected sock. At the very least, should be able to CU against Gugrak, if not against the master. UtherSRG (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this latest sock claims there are other socks out there. UtherSRG (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (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 just wanted to note that two IPs, both of which are obvious Orchomen socks, have edited this page, which, if there was any doubt as to Sro23's prodigious ability to identify socks behaviorally, removed it. I'm inclined now to tag Baseboom as a suspected sock, but I'll wait a little longer to see if Sro23 returns.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

It tends to revert edits and give negative ratings[134] and here from Gugrak [135], particularly when directed at a specific IP address. Furthermore, it was observed supporting the deletion of the Anglo-American Invasion of Communist Albania page in a discussion. Interestingly, the IP address also suddenly engaged with the user User:StephenMacky, advocating for the page's deletion. Notably, the same users ("User Based Shqiptar from pirok" and "NormalguyfromUK") are consistently involved in conflicts.[136] This behavior suggests the possibility of sockpuppetry tactics being employed to manipulate the discourse. Shqipodrilo (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Both the individual identified as 123.243.216.213 and Gugrak exhibit identical interests, editing patterns, and linguistic styles. It's worth noting that Gugrak has gained notoriety for creating multiple accounts, despite being permanently banned, and has started investigations into sockpuppetry aimed at me, although all these allegations have been proven false. Evidently, this new account appears to have been established with the intention of securing my banning. In fact, during a conversation with StephenMacky1, he remarked, "Thier refusal to do anything about BSfP is mind boggling." signifying his active engagement in efforts aimed against me. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

14 September 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]
The editors User:2.48.102.82 and User:37.245.43.126 are exhibiting similar interests and editing behavior to the accounts below, at least one of which was previously banned as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Orchomen. User:2.48.102.82 blanked that page multiple times and also blanked the page at User:37.245.43.126 multiple times. These two IP addresses also returned to editing some of the same articles edited by the other addresses listed, including Posy (given name). These addresses also all appear to be based in the United Arab Emirates. While this editor's or editors' editing of articles in the past day or so appears to be unobjectionable, the blanking of pages is problematic and there was apparently previous behavior that led to the User:Orchomen account and subsequent sockpuppets being suspended. The User:Gugrak account was banned as a suspected sockpuppet a couple of months ago. If this editor is the same individual, it would seem to be be more appropriate to ask to have the original account unblocked and acknowledge edits made using the other account and IP addresses. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Additionally, checkusers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances.

I don't see anything exceptional here. The blanking of talkpages isn't what's problematic, what's problematic is Bookworm857158367 publicly tagging linking multiple IPs including extremely stale ones to an account without being a CU or an admin, or an SPI or CU having taken place.31.219.136.224 (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)91.72.187.50 (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)2.48.51.30 (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC) UTC)[reply]

It's only problematic if it is done to avoid a block or scrutiny of one's edits, which the pattern of editing made me think it might be. I'm not saying the editing by these addresses on their own is a problem, even if I disagree with some. That's a fairly normal content dispute that helps make an article better when editors can collaborate. After that length of time, I think it might well be time to lift the ban on the original identity if there actually is a connection between these accounts, though it would have to be requested. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Recreated Tarleton helmet as Tarleton Cap. Quack. CU request for any missed accounts, as this one has been inactive for over a month. Sro23 (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2024 (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]

08 May 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The account 94.200.83.10 exhibits similar behaviour to User:Gugrak and User:Baseboom returning today to an article that both accounts previously edit warred over at Ben Roberts-Smith. Both User:Gugrak and User:Baseboom are confirmed sockpuppets of User:Orchomen. Editor interaction analyser shows that 94.200.83.10 has shared editing interest on three articles with User:Gugrak. 94.200.83.10 has admitted here and here that the other IPs are them. All three IPs geolocate to United Arab Emirates in line with previous use of IP addresses by this editor. TarnishedPathtalk 11:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC) TarnishedPathtalk 11:33, 8 May 2024 (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 May 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Refer to Special:Diff/1223139631 where 2001:8F8:1B69:1AFD:B867:D644:BDE9:4E10 replies to comments I made in reference to the blocked sock IPs using the words "I have never ...". 2001:8F8:1B69:1AFD:B867:D644:BDE9:4E10 appears to be on the 2001:8F8:1B69:0:0:0:0:0/49 subnet and IPs from that subnet have already received blocks as part of last report.
Block log from above subnet shows that it has received a recent block for edit warring on multiple articles (there seems to be cross over with those articles and Orchomen/Gugrak's known interests).
An editor at Special:Diff/1219611773 notes that 92.97.74.100 (recently blocked as a sock of Orchoment) is also operating on the 2001:8F8:1B69:0:0:0:0:0/49 subnet. TarnishedPathtalk 06:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
31.219.94.144 has just outed themselves on my user talk with the edit at Special:Diff/1223164767. Like many previous IPs this geolocates to UAE. TarnishedPathtalk 09:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
@Bbb23, I just came across an historical block log. They've been operating on that subnet for a long time. TarnishedPathtalk 13:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

28 May 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

They've recently edited Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith at Special:Diff/1226063608. The article is known to be one that Orchomen goes back to and the first IP geolcates to UAE which is known to be where IP edits by Orchomen generally geolocate to. Second IP they've just edited from geolocates to Sweden but was used to restore a comment by the first IP (refer to Special:Diff/1226065517). TarnishedPathtalk 10:40, 28 May 2024 (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 May 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

They've recently edited Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith at Special:Diff/1226063608. The article is known to be one that Orchomen goes back to and the first IP geolcates to UAE which is known to be where IP edits by Orchomen generally geolocate to. Second IP they've just edited from geolocates to Sweden but was used to restore a comment by the first IP (refer to Special:Diff/1226065517). TarnishedPathtalk 10:40, 28 May 2024 (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 June 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

2.49.38.187 has disruptively commented on my user talk at Special:Diff/1226940783 (reverting conversations that I had previously archived) and Special:Diff/1226941211 (casting WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence. Sockmaster has been known to disruptively edit user talks of other editors in the past. IP geolocates to UAE like many of the IPs that the sockmaster has been known to use. TarnishedPathtalk 00:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 31.219.133.189 has recently commented on a CTOP notice I left for another editor at Special:Diff/1227055135. Again this IP geolocates to UEA and the behaviour of following edits around to harass them is known to the sockmaster. TarnishedPathtalk 12:13, 3 June 2024 (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 June 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Clearly a returning user. Despite being less than a month old, user is fully cognisant of a wide range of Wikipedia policies and how to wield them, and not afraid to revert first and ask questions later. Account created 28 May. Their first 22 edits[137] deleted content from pages, trolling for a bite. On Bagoas (courtier) I reverted their deletion of a whole section, but actually agreed some was undue and deleted that. They continued to attempt to delete content, and now disruptively insisting on more sources for a fully sourced sentence. They only engage in talk when reverting, but are clearly watching the page waiting to revert, whilst ignoring the talk. This is clearly disruptive and typical of this LTA sock who moves from page to page, and trolls editors (sometimes leaving messages on their talk pages telling them they are going to have fun with them). They equally clearly have little to no knowledge of the page subject. Also typical of this sock is accidental logged out editing. The LTA clearly runs multiple accounts simultaenously and presumably logs out between usages, sometimes failing to log in again. The Logged out editing is from IP address ranges that geolocate to this sock, and have been used by this sock in the past. It was evident from first engagement that this was a returned user. The particular pattern of trolling behaviour, wrapped around of - on the face of it - semi reasonable edits are what show this to be this LTA troll. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2024 (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]

20 June 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Sock has again returned to edit Ben Roberts-Smith (a known interest of theirs) at Special:Diff/1229570105 and Special:Diff/1229570749 on 18/06/2024. The IP 2001:8f8:1b69:a57:5fcc:9f60:e4e3:16bd forms part of the 2001:8F8:1B69:0:0:0:0:0/49 subnet and geolocates to UAE. As noted previously 2001:8F8:1B69:0:0:0:0:0/49 is a subnet that the sock is known to edit from as well as them being known to generally edit from IPs geolocating to UAE. TarnishedPathtalk 09:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy, that 2001:8f8:1b69:a57:f8df:fe45:8aef:aa7e IP that you mention also falls in the 2001:8F8:1B69:0:0:0:0:0/49 subnet. TarnishedPathtalk 10:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given this SPI I've identified a few subnets that they operate on. Not saying every edit on those subnets is theirs, but it wouldn't surprise me if almost all are. Subnets are 2001:8F8:1B69:0:0:0:0:0/49, 37.245.0.0/16, 31.219.0.0/16 and 176.204.0.0/16. The last two @Black Kite and @Ad Orientem have recently put blocks on for one year and three years respectively. TarnishedPathtalk 09:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Indeed, the sock has been prolific with multiple IPs all geolocating to the same location since Mizzion was blocked a few days ago. Largely trolling my edits. They are having a major pwdi, bless. I have been diligently reporting at AIV though, because I don't think SPI can do anything with reports of IP socking. Checkusers will not confirm information about an IP (despite the fact it is blinking obvious in this case). For the record, these are the additional IPs I have reported in the last 3 days:

  • 31.218.130.249
  • 31.218.139.25
  • 31.219.122.106
  • 31.219.130.138
  • 37.245.210.253
  • 37.245.152.231
  • 176.204.81.94
  • 176.204.112.15
  • 2.48.197.48
  • 2001:8f8:1b69:a57:f8df:fe45:8aef:aa7e
  • 176.204.159.219
  • 176.204.195.93
  • 176.204.198.139
  • 5.38.69.196

Ben Roberts-Smith is now EC protected for a year, which will prevent further abuse there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orchomen/Archive&oldid=1233025232"