Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tobias Conradi

Tobias Conradi (talk+ · tag · 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)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Mayalld (talk)


  • This user has edited at least one time.
  • Matches the literal pattern topocode.


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)[reply]
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 It has been archived automatically.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)[reply]



Report date April 22 2009, 11:50 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date April 30 2009, 12:54 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by HBC NameWatcherBot
  • This user has edited at least one time.
  • Matches the literal pattern topocode.


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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. What has all this Tobias Conradi stuff to do with TopoCode? 79.193.138.171 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologise for any imprecise language in my prior comment
  1. 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
  2. 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"
  3. Topocode (talk · contribs) was previously identified as a sock of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs)
Mayalld (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: The original ban discussion can be found here Mayalld (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

 Completed all blocked. Mayalld (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


15 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Skäpperöd [edit]

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,

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

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)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

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)[reply]

26 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Dpmuk [edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • 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)[reply]
20 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by L.tak [edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Confirmed –MuZemike 04:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by L.tak [edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

IP blocked 55 hours for obvious block evasion. Note this is not a checkuser block. TNXMan 17:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

25 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by JaGa [edit]

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)[reply]

Oh, and note this account has only existed since October 20. --JaGatalk 15:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

=Part 1=[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

=Part 2=[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
All three users are  Likely the same. TNXMan 14:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
01 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by PMDrive1061 [edit]

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)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Dpmuk [edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

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)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Clerk endorsed: decision on whether to block the underlying IP/s referred to checkuser discretion. SpitfireTally-ho! 09:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: Merged base with one below. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. J.delanoygabsadds 02:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All users listed above already blocked, no users remain, closing. Nakon 07:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
02 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Daedalus969 [edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

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)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Confirmed, no sleepers, underlying range already blocked. –MuZemike 23:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

06 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Dpmuk [edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Sounds like you are Schwyz, all right. --JaGatalk 12:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's odd that JaGa libels User:Schwyz, an account never blocked for its edits. TurkChan (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Roger. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

information 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I turned up one account as a  Confirmed match: TrackConnect (talk+ · tag · 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)[reply]
information 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)[reply]
07 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Dpmuk [edit]

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:

  1. Very similar moves with very similar reasoning to moves by User:TurkChan a known sock, e.g. TrueColour and TurkChan.
  2. Very similar moves to User:TigreTiger (another known sock) swapping the name of a Lake and the word Lake e.g. TrueColour and TigreTiger
  3. TurkChan repeated a first done by TrueColour and later reverted - TrueColour and TurkChan
  4. 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)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

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)[reply]

information Administrator note Looks like a duck. As such, blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 16:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]

18 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Dpmuk [edit]

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)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Confirmed and  IP blocked TNXMan 12:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Muchness [edit]

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)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

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)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

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)[reply]

18 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Elen of the Roads [edit]

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)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Way ahead of you. :)  Confirmed:

 Clerk note: Everything looks done here. Marking for close. Elockid (Talk) 02:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22 January 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[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]
31 January 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[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]
  • 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)[reply]


03 March 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
27 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - (Please contact me in two days if no CU has acted on it yet). NW (Talk) 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following are  Confirmed:

I have also blocked the IP range. Dominic·t 03:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pink clock Awaiting administrative action For the load. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note I've blocked the lot and am in the process of tagging. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29 April 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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)[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, along with TigerCarl (talk · contribs). TNXMan 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

fish CheckUser is not for fishing is applicable here, close please. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 18:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marking for close. TNXMan 17:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
30 May 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - 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)[reply]
    • Appears to be Red X Unrelated. TNXMan 14:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing really left to do. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


07 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

@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)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
10 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


30 May 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#Tobias Conradi: Still community banned?. I've just blocked these two based on behavioural evedience but given past history I would be amazed if there aren't more socks so requesting a sleeper check. Dpmuk (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Dpmuk (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

On behavioural grounds, the details of which are on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I'm conviced that Timeineurope is a sockpuppet. I have strong suspicions about the other three, which all display one of the three Tobias Conradi sockpuppet tell-tales that I deduced from earlier sockpuppets' contributions histories. I'm listing them for future investigators' reference, as they've not been listed here until now. Uncle G (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

information Administrator note As stated above when I started this SPI I'd already blocked User:TZ master and User:Royaume du Maroc as they quacked enough for me. Have now also blocked User:TimeZoneEditor and User:HTML2011 (who I did not add to this case) for also quacking too loudly. I still think a sleeper check would be useful. Dpmuk (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • For starters, the following are  Stale
  • The following are  Confirmed socks of one another, and given information I have they are  Likely Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs):
  • Given the rather obvious patterns associated with the accounts Uncle G listed, I went ahead and blocked them. As for sleepers, it does not appear there are any. Tiptoety talk 01:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged/re-tagged the already blocked accounts, so closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
01 July 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This isn't really a suspicion. It has two of the distinctive markers of Tobias Conradi. I'm recording it here to aid in future tracking and so that checkusers and others can know that a gap is not in fact a gap. Tobias Conradi was continuing to edit within 48 hours of the preceding sockpuppet being blocked. Uncle G (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Coming here after I saw the move of Tamil alphabet. This is a trademark of Tobias Conradi. See [14] for priors similar to this. This qualifies for a WP:DUCK block for those familiar with him, but as it's here I'll refrain from any action. Also, there's never a single sock, so a sweep would be beneficial. He's used different ranges in the past and stuff, so a CU familiar with the case may be able to provide better technical info and context to the verifying CU. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Took a little searching, but there are enough coincidences to justify CU. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Additional information needed. What are the distinctive markers? It's not up to CheckUsers to make that argument for you. WilliamH (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one has asked you to make any argument. I have told you that it has two of the distinctive markers. Moreover, I pointed to where I detailed them last time in this SPI case. Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 48 hours? Am I missing something here, because the last case filed was on 1 June? - Mailer Diablo 17:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. Look at the account creation and block logs, not the case dates. Uncle G (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, the account needs to be {{usernameblocked}} as it gives people the impression that Indiana State University is behind that account. --MuZemike 21:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have username-blocked Indiana State in the meanwhile as a misleading username as mentioned above. --MuZemike 23:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below is merged from Imperium Romanum Sacrum[edit]

08 December 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Both are clearly Brazilians and focused in articles about Brazilian states (provinces). While the user LatinoLatino is creating several one-sentence-long articles that no one will expand[15][16][17] which are related to Brazil's 19th century history (that is, the Empire of Brazil), the other one, BrasiliaBrasilia seems focused on 20th and 21th century-related articles: [18][19][20] However, as I pointed before, they all have similar themes: states, provinces, federal territories, etc... They create very short articles (as already said), move articles without discussing and are very aggressive when met with any kind of opposition.[21][22] Both users have similar names too. - Lecen (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Looks like a strong case. Note the resemblance between the double-name accounts. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
11 December 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#indefinite_block_of_LatinoLatino.2FImperium_Romanum_Sacrum_seems_to_be_pure_censure.

Just after Imperium Romanum Sacrum was blocked he came to the ANI board claiming censorship on the part of Wikipedia. Further he has the same editing interest, the master is already blocked for socking, as such I believe this to be a sleeper account being used to evade his current block. While Imperium.. doesn't show editing in Brazilian or Portugese pages, his socks do. Thank you for you time.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Perhaps you're talking of User:Jorge alo? Because the link you offered is red. --Lecen (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Add me to the suspected sockpuppet list, because I protested the blocking too. Walrasiad (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • (involved) It was checked before I could pipe in, but I didn't think they would be related either. Their understanding of English is different, for starters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Red X Unrelated. Courcelles 18:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Behavior and checkuser both indicate that they are unrelated. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16 December 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User:NVanMinh was opened 23:37, 15 December 2012. Almost every post is a criticism or attack against me. It's obviously somebody who has a grudge, not somebody who just started editing yesterday. The most likely suspect is User:༆. Kauffner (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Comment - Let it be said that I am not Kauffner's biggest fan. I was the one who first stumbled across the pattern of IP edits under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive. I also suspect that NVanMinh has edited before. In particular, there was an IP comment Kauffner deleted from his Talk page some months back which bears some of the same style. But then one editor who edits as an IP and another is somewhat the pot calling the kettle black.
However I don't think for a moment that NVanMinh is User:Yig Mgo (that is what that User talk:༆ Tibetan caret as a User symbol is that appears like a little torch, or as a ☐ ballot box if you have older fonts like the PC at my gym). NVanMinh's English is (sorry YigMgo) evidently better than YigMgo's, enough to pick up on sarcasm; NVanMinh understands wp templates, YigMgo doesn't (again sorry YigMgo), NVanMinh is clued up about the capitalization issue, YigMgo isn't particularly - despite having also agreed with Dr Blofeld as we all have. Most significantly NVanMinh doesn't seem at all aware of the history of the last 6 months re Kauffner's stripping of the WikiProject Vietnam pages of Vietnamese spelling titles which YigMgo has followed every step, NVanMinh hasn't picked up on despite it being under his/her face. My impression is that NVanMinh has returned to en.wp from some earlier history about capitalization having missed the ongoing soap opera of Kauffner's circa 1,400x article moves against the Vietnamese alphabet.
There is evidently a medium sized list of vi.wp editors, occasional visitors to en.wp WikiProject Vietnam, who have objected to various aspects of Kauffner's editing over the last 2 years. A better coincidence than 2 editors agreeing with Dr Blofeld is needed before disposing of local Vietnamese participation in WP:VN in this manner. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for linking NVanMinh and ༆ was this diff, where they seem to be collaborating. But it is true that the writing style is not the same. There is no history of controversy about capitalization in the project prior to the discussion that began on Dec. 12, so that doesn't narrow it down. NVanMinh obviously has an editing history of some kind, and there must be a reason why he is not telling us what it is. The issue of the page moves I made last year was dealt with on ANI a long time ago. I expect IIO to continue to forum shop the matter for years to come. Kauffner (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no history of controversy about capitalization in the project prior to the discussion that began on Dec. 12" - obviously another attempt to deceive the readers, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vietnam&diff=528276298&oldid=528263189#Capitalization_for_province_names . NVanMinh (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge - These are what that Kauffner has done: undiscussed mass renaming of articles, clearly show that he only discriminates against Vietnamese language diacritics and not European ones, deliberately violate the result of a RM. With these on his side, it's clearly that many people started to complain and put down his efforts. He brings these troubles into himself. I'm sure 80% of problems we have right now are the results of Kauffner's doing about the discriminating of Vietnamese diacritics. We will not get into this fight if that guys stop his platform effort about mass removing diacritics. Furthermore, I admit that I have a sub-account but it's NONE of the above. So go ahead and do CheckUser, I do NOT use the other account for a sock purpose. And please, after doing the CheckUser, you (any admin) check my other account and please DON't openly tell the name of that account; I want it's still a secret. ༆ (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about Minh_Tâm-T41-BCA, the sock puppet that voted in the RfC? Kauffner (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you fail to predict again. On the other account, the way that I edit is completely different from this one (༆). So no surprise that you don't realize that the other account is mine the entire time. Also, I also rarely use the other acc. ༆ (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed it is blatantly obvious that NVanMinh did not start editing yesterday. Their immediate familiarity with categories and templates such as {{catmain}}, wikiprojects and their familiarity with Kauffner's history is evidence enough of that. It seems that this [23] edit by ༆ along with [24] by NVanMinh is evidence enough to draw a link between the two and warrant a check. Kauffner, please note in future cases that it is useful to provide diffs showing that the two accounts corroborate each other. Simply saying "What kind of person keeps track of another users' capitalization activity from last year? I think we both know the answer to that." does not count as evidence and results in me either having to put the case on hold until evidence is provided, or having to trawl through the contributions myself. Many thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because this unwritable username supports capitalization (I opposed his reasoning, when seeing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)&diff=next&oldid=528190799) and I support capitalization, "is evidence enough to draw a link between the two" ? Are you joking? NVanMinh (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Relisted You are clearly not a new editor; I have just run a check and the technical evidence I got seems to link you to Imperium Romanum Sacrum (talk · contribs) and his socks, but before calling you a sock, I'd like another CU to double-check my findings. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This "Imperium Romanum Sacrum" case was recently discussed outside Wikipedia, the person behind LatinoLatino made it known. It is not very professional to call different accounts using a shared computer socks of each other. But if Wikipedia does not allow several geography students to use the same computer, then so be it. NVanMinh (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It *appears* that these accounts edit from the same computer and just switch web browsers every time they have a new account. I can confirm that all the previous socks are the same user, but this user did not have any direct overlap to compare with. Right now, with the technical evidence only, you have a  Likely from me that NVanMinh = Imperium Romanum Sacrum and friends. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Switch browser every time they have a new account ... that's now browser number 5? I find only three on this machine. Two browsers OK, they are commonly used, but a third, fourth or even a fifth ... that's really not a good choice, from a security point of view. Thanks for telling. I will tell the admin. NVanMinh (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked for comment by NVanMinh. It seems clear that they are not a new user. This doesn't necessarily make them a sock, though if they're abusing multiple accounts, skirting a ban, etc., that's a problem. I really don't have anything else to add, but what exactly is the reason for tying long-time good editors Dr. Blofeld and Carlossuarez46 to this? They are clearly unrelated.Cúchullain t/c 14:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them.Cúchullain t/c 14:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answering Salvio's request for a recheck, I concur with him that the technical evidence shows a link between NVanMinh and Imperium Romanum Sacrum. Naturally checkuser cannot disprove NVanMinh's explanation that they're two people sharing a computer. As such, I leave it to a clerk/administrator to decide this based on behavioural evidence. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done a lot of digging and talking with DeltaQuad, and find enough behavioral evidence to link NVanMinh to the puppetmaster when combined with the CU data, and have indeffed the puppet. This is the second block and 4th sock for Imperium, so I've extended it out to two months from today. ༆ doesn't appear to be connected via CU and beahvior isn't an obvious link, so no action has been taken with that editor. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20 May 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Tobias Conradi has been a regular sock, with a few fixed interests. One of these has been the topic of railway gauge, which he seeks to rename as "track gauge" - admittedly a rather minor WP:NEOlogism. He also repeatedly seeks to relabel the many gauges in use, which for historical reasons are often cited in feet and inches, into metric units. These gives such bizarre phrasing as Brunel's famous 7 foot broad gauge becoming 2140mm gauge. This topic may appear obscure, but it's taken seriously by the railway projects. "600mm gauge" is clearly a gauge invented in a metric country and the functionally very similar (but incompatible) "610mm gauge" is the similar product of a non-metric country, this being the simple round number of two feet. The technical history of such gauges is intertwined with their mode of description and is a notable aspect that should be preserved accurately, despite petty nationalism.

This has been a regular feature of Tobias Conradi and his many socks: a change without consensus or sourcing.

This new account appeared recently and went straight back to the track gauge metrication issue. With a small digression into a vast unsourced list article (now at AfD) List of RAL colors on a German colour standard - Conradi is known to be German. The track gauge editing is pure WP:DUCK - undiscussed major changes pushing a personal agenda of metrication for everything and a swap to his favoured "track gauge" rather than previous terms. Much of this editing has also taken place at Commons, with similar issues.

Today's fraudian slip at Commons was illuminating. At Commons:User_talk:HSRtrack I accused this new editor of being a sock of "Tobias Conrad" (my mistake), whereupon I was promptly corrected as to his name being "Tobias Conradi". Arcane knowledge for such a new editor.

On account of both of these factors, I consider this to be a WP:DUCK and request a checkuser / SPI. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2013 (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]

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you provide specific diffs related to the account in question? It is not up to the CUs / clerks to make your case for you. CUs: all socks I can find in the cats and on the archive page are stale, but CUs have been run and there may be stuff in the logs. --Rschen7754 09:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you after? Evidence that today's sock is pushing inappropriate metrication? That past blocked TC socks have pushed the same metrication & rename agenda? Or that TC has been a prolific sockmaster? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first two - mainly showing us (who are not familiar with the accused master or the accused sock) that there are grounds to believe that the two are the same person. --Rschen7754 09:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just HSRTrack's unfiltered contribs are pretty clear on this. Apart from the RAL colours, the majority of their edits are related to this issue. We have undiscussed edits to widely used infobox templates [27] [28] [29] page moves [30] [31] (this one had been previously rejected by consesus at Talk:Rail_gauge_in_Australia#Requested_move, a move first requested by HTML2011 (talk · contribs), another blocked TC sock ) and general editing across a vast range of internationally diverse railways [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] – not a set that makes much sense for one content-focussed GF editor's interests, unless it's a term-changing crusade across the whole corpus (and these are only a small fraction of a new editor's predominant change). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - per obsession with track gauge, but CUs please note my comments about the staleness of everything else above. Rschen7754 10:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on CU logs, it is  Possible that HSRtrack is Tobias Conradi. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find [38] from Wikidata pretty convincing, after having examined the prior evidence as well, blocking. Rschen7754 22:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing behavior very similar to Tobias, and not like a new user. Account started on Dec. 21, 2013, and the 12th edit is a page move - not something I'd expect from an inexperienced user, see the edit log. A strong interest in creating Municipality articles and moving geographic pages for "consistency". Furthermore, a tendency to make mass moves without first seeking consensus, as can be seen in the complaints on his talk page: User talk:Androoox#Serbian municipalities and User talk:Androoox#Moves reverted.. More at Talk:Subdistricts of Mandatory Palestine#Regarding terms JaGatalk 22:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

It seems I shall comment here, admittedly I am unsure what exactly I shall do. Maybe this is the right time to formulate my main goals, similar to the page I recently found when googling for Blofeld stub since this turned up in some Palestine templates: User:Dr. Blofeld/Stub and development philosophy I liked the page and thanked User:Dr. Blofeld for it.

Or maybe there is only one main goal: Improve all Wikipedia language editions.

Since English is spoken as a second language by many people around the world, it could help to improve the English Wikipedia and thereby allow local editors around the world to translate into their language. I cannot contribute to all areas of knowledge. So, for me it is geography.

I would like to have an article in the English Wikipedia for any geographic "object" that exists in Wikidata.

I helped to

My first major article creations were related to items in South Eastern Europe, trees showing them are at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Androoox. Bulgaria massively lacked articles. They existed in five or more languages, but not in the English Wikipedia.

What I didn't know at that time, but recently became aware of:

So, that is what I am here for. Improve all Wikipedia language editions.

It is 2014, and many municipalities of Bulgaria - second-level divisions - had no article yet. People discuss too much instead of moving forward and create new content. I fixed a bug on the main page of a United Nations member state, namely Hungary [41]. It existed there since more than a year. Nobody cared. Almost the complete set of former subregions and the set of the districts of Hungary is missing. While not only in Hungarian, but also fairly complete in French it exists.

No, I didn't start a discussion first to remove the false stuff from the Hungary article.

I can disclose that I have experience with MediaWiki software outside of Wikipedia, i.e. the move-function is nothing new to me. But for privacy reasons I would like to not disclose where. So my early usage of the move function is nothing special. As a long-term reader of the English Wikipedia, I am aware of the fact, that geographic entities in Russia have the class name in upper case, that's why I moved. I thought it was inconsistent with lower case. I was reverted by User:Ezhiki, then I left it.

In the user compare report it says, User:Tobias Conradi edited 16932 pages. If he had similar interests, it is obvious, that there is overlap in pages. My main focus is on Europe, Middle East, North Africa. I also had some edits in the Philippines, I found there via CFD. Philippine geography has a very inconsistent naming model. And, one can see my recent controversy at Talk:Cebu (island) - there is not even a proper article about Cebu Island - 20 Wikipedias have one, see d:Q6447129#sitelinks-wikipedia.

User:JaGa writes :

  • "strong interest in creating Municipality articles" - I would rather say, strong interest in creating any geography-related article that not exists yet in the English Wikipedia
  • "a tendency to make mass moves without first seeking consensus" and points to

I am not a sock puppet of User:Tobias Conradi, and I wish people would concentrate on creating new content and improve the current content instead of diving into fights with each other. Yes, I am bold in my editing.

JaGa - how many pages did you move, without seeking prior consensus? Just at the end of writing this text here I had a short look. In your move log, within seconds, I found a very controversial one, which I reverted. There are already four Kalynivka.

Nothing else to do?

http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/project_stats.php - 62% of all items in Wikidata have no article in the English Wikipedia.

I now move on. Cheers. Androoox (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Reply to 06:43 17 Februray 2014 message from Rschen7754)Yes, and especially for circumvention of block. "09:38, 24. Dez. 2013 Itti (Diskussion | Beiträge) sperrte „Androoox (Diskussion | Beiträge)“ für den Zeitraum: Unbeschränkt (Erstellung von Benutzerkonten gesperrt, E-Mail-Versand gesperrt, darf eigene Diskussionsseite nicht bearbeiten) (Sperrumgehung, keine Besserung erkennbar)". But, then, if you look at the actual discussion, here different allegations were made. First came the block. Then people associated me with SDB + Wheeke, then someone comes in and says SDB is totally different from Wheeke and I would fall into the category of Gratisaktie. Then someone comes in and says, the decision (to block) was wrong, and it is definitely not Wheeke! And this persons thinks it is SDB and not Gratisaktie. Then someone, definitely not SDB. Then the admin that blocked writes, I don't know who it is. I didn't claim that it is Wheeke. ... Nevertheless the block stayed. I thought, German Wikipedia is just crazy. All I did there was to work on geography. Maybe this culture of hate and blocking is the reason that the German Wikipedia is now only third place in with respect to number of articles. Androoox (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the above comment from the Clerk/CheckUser/Patrolling admin section as Androoox is in none of these categories Hasteur (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No such user[edit]

Is this going to slip through the cracks, or...? I don't recall all the details about Tobias Conradi – thanks, JaGa, for connecting the dots – but having browsed a bit through his contributions and comparing them with Androoox, I don't have any doubt that it is the same person. Even a casual look reveals identical points of interest and editing style. Their writing style is in short paragraphs, separated by linebreaks and often interspersed with bulleted points. Their encounters with administrators are generally civil, mildly condescending, and always failing to address the substance of the problem. Compare e.g. last Conradi's message with the one of Androoox, above.

While Conradi has its share of good edits, it was his recklessness that eventually got him banned. Not sure how much of Androoox's edits are worth keeping, so WP:NUKE might be in order. No such user (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk declined. Everything about Tobias Conradi and his previously identified socks is stale, so nothing for a CU to compare here. This case must be evaluated on behavioural evidence. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note It's looking likely based on WP:BEANS evidence, but I'd like to hear from the accused user first so I've left them a message - please comment in the section above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd read through the archive... and note especially that this account is blocked at dewiki. --Rschen7754 06:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are a number of behavioral similarities, and per beans (as suggested by Callanecc) I'd rather not go too deeply into them. But between edit summaries and the particular topics of interest, it led me to suspect this is a sock. The only thing that gave me doubt was the editor's communication style, which seems more refined than what I read from Tobias Conradi at various talk pages. Then I looked at communication from his most recent socks, and saw overwhelming similarities. The improvement of this editor's communication skills is explained by the 6+ year gap between their original block in 2007 and now, an improvement that can be observed at this editor's archived sockpuppet page. I'm making the decision to block this editor, made easier by the agreement of at least 4 other editors on this page toward the likelihood, and my own observations. -- Atama頭 17:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note All accounts blocked and tagged. -- Atama頭 17:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

29 October 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Conradi's last sock was Androoox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Derianus and Androoox share the following features:

Finally, I think that global contributions of Androoox and Derianus tell enough. They both speak German [44] [45]. They both edit almost exclusively Commons, Wikidata, and English WP, with some German WP. I don't think checkuser is necessary, it quacks quite loudly. No such user (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

The user has been highly disruptive by performing a large amount of edits outside of consensus (including moves) and by edit-warring about them. The disruption started immediately after the user has registered. The editing manner and interests indeed are similar to Androoox.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The other way around, Ymblanter is higly disruptive, he reverts well sourced edits [46] [47] [48] claiming "get consensus first" and "UNDUE". This has been brought up at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine#Fact removal by User:Ymblanter. Ymblanter invents claims about me: 1) "he is not aware of the fact that all republics of the USSR were divided into raions" - I am and was. I don't know why he made that up. In fact, I am the one who added many of these entities to the article raion. 2) On Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine he invented another story about me "They also renamed all Belarusian raions to districts" - which is a blatant lie. Derianus (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the claims by No such user:
  • If one is interested in "ex-USSR administrative divisions" it is not that far away to be interested in "Eurozone" which also is an "artificial" territorial entity, even including some "ex-USSR administrative divisions". Wilayah is pretty close too, since some of the "ex-USSR administrative divisions" name their entities after a derivative of that base term.
  • Recklessness, i.e. unilateral page moves and huge edits - There is a button "Move" and using that one can rename a page. There is no obligation to talk first. I don't know what are "huge edits". I don't think I made any edit that was "huge".
  • Almost exclusive interest in administrative divisions and article titles - I did not yet have much time to show my other areas of interest.
  • On day 10 he's quite acquainted with MOS:DATES - it doesn't take even half an hour to become acquainted with MOS:DATES.
  • Common global edits - well, for a European with higher education, interested in Eastern European topics, is it that unlikely to speak languages that are common in Eastern Europe? It would be more of an evidence if both accounts would have edited a Bantu-language Wikipedia or a topic far distant from administrative entities.
Derianus (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Clerk declined The most recent sock account is too stale for checkuser. This case will have to be decided based on behavioral evidence. Mike V • Talk 19:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just changed this back to a CU request. Quite convinced this is this user (and I have a lot of experience with this user - see the past cases) and given the past tendency to have multiple accounts I'd be amazed if there aren't more there that may be able to be linked to this account even if not back to the existing ones here. There's also WP:BEANS reasons I'd like to see a check-user on this. They've been blocked per discussion at AN/I, a decision I agree with. I also pinged the CUs that dealt with this case before and are still active so that hopefully one of them will take a look. Dpmuk (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Courcelles 04:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found one sleeper for you, Vladimir Gribochev (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). @Mike V:, IMO, this guy pretty much always needs a drawer check when spotted. Courcelles
  • I've tagged the sleeper. Thanks for for the note, Courcelles. I'll remember that for future cases. Mike V • Talk 15:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's worrying that you only found one. I'm pretty certain there will be more but I don't have the time it would take to find them the old fashion way, especially given the apparent demise of User:JaGa's tool. User:Mike V - no problem with your original decline. IMO opinion it's one of the failings of the SPI clerking system that it doesn't deal well with repeat cases as you';d need to know that background to know a CU was probably warranted. I've also been asked to provide evidence before in these sort of cases when the best use of everyone's time is for a CU experienced with the case to take a 10 second look at the contributions and spot the pattern, rather than the reported spending several minutes typing it up. Dpmuk (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
06 April 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Issue raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Tobias Conradi back again?. TrackGauge has been editing similar articles to those Tobias Conradi did, specifically List of gauge conversions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Note that the user name is also indicative of a TC sock. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • The previous socks here are stale, but comparing what's available in the CU logs suggests that TrackGauge is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). Also, Railman2015 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to TrackGauge. Mike V • Talk 00:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


14 April 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See related discussion at d:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#User IP-80.134.90.212 acting without consensus. GZWDer (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2015 (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]

 Additional information needed: I've read the discussion linked above, but I still do not understand the connection between IP-80.134.90.212 and Tobias Conradi. @GZWDer: Could you elaborate it further? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vanjagenije: Multichill suspect this user is a sock of Andrea Shan and others, which are socks of Tobias Conradi. Moreover, the German IP 80.134.90.212 said he uses this account.--GZWDer (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanjagenije: IP-80.134.90.212 is a new suspected (by Multichill) sock of Andrea Shan, which is a confirmed sock of Tobias Conradi.--GZWDer (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GZWDer: Please, show me the page (or diff) where Multichill accuses IP-80.134.90.212 of being a sock of Andrea Shan. The page you showed (this one) does not contain the phrase "80.134.90.212" at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed I'm endorsing the CU to compare User:IP-80.134.90.212 with Tobias Conradi's socks. The account is already blocked, but that is just a username block, and the user is trying to register a new account (see: User_talk:IP-80.134.90.212), so we should know if he is a sockpuppet. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Confirmed sock per m:Steward requests/Checkuser#FreightXPress@wikidata. Please check if there're other socks which does not edit Wikidata (for example Special:CentralAuth/Kunfusius last time) GZWDer (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I indeffed them, we can archive the request.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
27 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Active on en.wiki since May 2015. Has been mostly dormant since account creation on es.wiki (es:Usuario:Janitoalevic) in 2013 [50]. Behavioral similarities with Conradi (see contribs): Janitoalevic also works on territorial divisions, but exclusively of south Chile and Antarctic, both on en.wiki and globally. Adds flags whenever possible and creates country data templates [51]. Reckless (hundreds of edits in succession). Active cross-wiki (see Global Contribs). Move log is short but resembles Conradi's socks. On the other hand, editing times are consistent with someone in Chilean time zone, and he seems to speak good Spanish, so I'm not positive. The only (weak) link with Conradi's native German is commons:File:Wellington und Blücher nach der Schlacht von Waterloo.jpg. No such user (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Wow, that was fast. Can you please also nuke his contribs? I don't think there's anything useful there. No such user (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Judging on the discussion on User Talk:Janitoalevic#Re: Why did you reverted my changes?, we seem to be in the wrong. His explanation is quite plausible, and he behaves quite unlike Conradi's typical WP:ICANTHEARYOU passive-aggressive denials. I'm inclined to AGF and unblock, without prejudice to a checkuser; I will deal with the damage he's done later. No such user (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I blocked them indef per duck test (otherwise they will start renaming categories which are difficult to revert), but it would be good to check for sleepers.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let us wait before nuking the contributions. I do not want to restore them if there is consensus that the user should not have been blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, they so far behave differently than other blocked socks. May be I was wrong. I am going to unblock them if the CU is declined, or if CU shows these are two different users.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, unblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

22 July 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar edits (alphabet, subdivisions). Also see d:Special:Contributions/TimurKirov and d:Special:Contributions/80.134.89.98 (A German IP, same as other socks). Probably there're more socks. GZWDer (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Note: A local check is needed even if blocked (by DUCK or due to Checkuser in Meta), as several socks only edit enwiki.--GZWDer (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
80.134.89.98 is quacking loudly.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanjagenije, Ymblanter, GZWDer, and Bbb23: There's also Eldizzino (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) that I came across on a move of Pangong Tso, I was tied up then and forgot about it later, just remembered now when I saw the SPI listing. Given the huge move history, I don't think there's much of a doubt there? Also in terms of timing, this account seems to be placed right between FreightXPress and TimurKirov with the standard one week gap. —SpacemanSpiff 13:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bbb23, looking through, there's a boat load of moves and dabs and stuff so any help from others is welcome. —SpacemanSpiff 14:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SpacemanSpiff: Heh, don't look at me. Putting aside my time constraints, although I'm sure you're busy, too, I don't feel able to evaluate whether these pages should be deleted, and I don't automatically G5 a page just because "I can". In other SPIs where I'm the blocking checkuser, I've often G5ed pages, but in those it was obvious or at least clear. Maybe you could ask at AN or go out to the administrator plaza in downtown Wikipediaville and beg. --Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Additional information needed - @GZWDer: OK, the IP is blocked at WikiData as a sock of Tobias Conradi. But what about TimurKirov? Please, offer some evidence. Show some wp:diffs that illustrate similarity between TimurKirov and Tobias Conradi. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - To compare TimurKirov with previous Tobias Conradi socks. I think FreightXPress is the only non-stale confirmed sock, but I'm not sure, maybe some of them have edits on other wikis. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • TimurKirov (talk · contribs · count) is  Likely. If it weren't for the two-month gap between the last edits of FreightXPress and those of TimurKirov, I suspect it would be  Confirmed. I cannot run checks on other wikis. Many checkusers' advanced permissions are applicable only to one wiki. I know that Tiptoety has rights on other wikis, although I don't recall which ones. I think at least Commons. There are also en-wiki editors who don't have checkuser rights here but do have them on other wikis. Sometimes those checkusers are asked to run a check and report here. Given my finding, I'm not sure that any of that is necessary. I mainly note it for "educational" purposes.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets @Ymblanter: for further actions. Note this user also edits Commons.--GZWDer (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the benefit of more technical data from a CU of Eldizzino, my latest findings are that the following three accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • Two puppets blocked and tagged. @SpacemanSpiff: can you please look at any page creations that need to be G5ed? I see no reason to keep this SPI open for possible crosswiki action. Such action can take place if appropriate, and the SPI may be reopened if necessary. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

See Special:Contributions/Huk700 and [52]. Another sock reported by @Nikki: at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Special:Contributions/Huk700. GZWDer (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Given the circumstances (apperared after the previous sock was blocked; only interested in administrative divisions of unrelated countries - Kosovo, Comoros, and Greenland), this must be Tobias Conradi again.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Additional information needed - @GZWDer: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this..
Concentrate on edits made on English Wikipedia. By the way, the Wikidata page you linked does not exist. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try this diff.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29 July 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

New IP immediately starts editing country subdivisions (Tobias Conradi's favourite subject), e.g Municipalities of Guatemala, and started edit-warring at WP:NCGN and a rather hostile conversation at WT:NCGN. Markussep Talk 07:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

  •  Clerk note: @GZWDer: Please, do not revert SPI Clerks at sockpuppet investigation pages [55]. I know what I'm doing. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @GZWDer: And, stop adding Huk700 [56][57][58]. He is already listed in the archive of this case. And, yes, we do use data from the archive when checking. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: @Ymblanter: Can Dxq298 be globally locked to prevent him from editing here in the future? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be good if they were globally locked, but I am not a steward, I can not do this.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanjagenije and Ymblanter: I even think global ban is a good idea to deal with this user. He has changed his edit pattern again and again (Track gauge -> administrative divisions -> alphabet ...)--GZWDer (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've requested a global lock for Dxq298. IPs are not active an more. No evidence is presented for Helmut Schönberg and OrganicEarth. I'm closing this now. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

26 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Multichill and Succu suspected this user as a sock. As this user also edits eowiki, it's not a high confidence target. Also Helmut Schönberg in the latest archive should be checked (It is not confirmed). This user also edits administrative divisions. GZWDer (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2015 (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]

  • To avoid confusion, I also blocked both locally. Courcelles (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luckily I saw this at the top of my watchlist as I logged in so I was able to do the necessary reverts, deletions, and protection. —SpacemanSpiff 12:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courcelles, don't know if 80.134.88.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is worth blocking now, last logged out edit was 10 days ago, but thought I'd let you know. —SpacemanSpiff 12:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocks, tags, reverts, deletions, and protection done, so closing. —SpacemanSpiff 12:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

27 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

@Courcelles: I also request checking this account which is neither blocked here nor on Wikidata. GZWDer (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2015 (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]

  • Rather  Likely, though I suspect you'd get a more conclusive result from the Wikidata CU's. Given the Wikidata edits, though, I'm pretty certain this is him, so blocking. Courcelles (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already blocked. Closing the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03 October 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

The two accounts are quite new and have only made contributions to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which is Tobias' playground. These edits are intermixed with edits from the IP so it seems natural that it's him. The first account also has contributions to wikidata (stuff that I'm not familiar with, so I alerted Ymblanter. Another set of IPsocks was brought to my attention by Niceguyedc and I subsequently blocked 91.9.115.31 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) as a sock. —SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC) —SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

From the Wikidata contribution it is difficult to say anything conclusive. It might be TC, but it might also be a user genuinely correcting what they think wrong names of Swiss localities.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 October 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Tobias has recently taken to requesting moves as non-controversial and getting others to perform them so as to avoid scrutiny. I'd blocked a few of the IPs and Bbb23 did a small range block, but I think he has access to a couple of other ranges under the 91. and 80. series. As we haven't come across the other socks yet, a sleeper check would be beneficial. —SpacemanSpiff 04:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Pardon me for a stupid question, but if he is requesting moves as uncontroversial and other editors then vet this judgement and perform the move, how is that different from any other user requesting an uncontroversial move, and where is the harm? This isn't even disruptive, nor are you even completely sure it's him. Are we here just to get the guy now, whatever the cost? I was under the impression that we are trying to improve the actual encyclopedia, silly me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2015; 13:18 (UTC)

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

  • Caracara15 (talk · contribs · count) is  Likely. Another account, Diamantan (talk · contribs · count), is  Technically indistinguishable from Caracara15, but behavioral analysis is needed given the few edits made by Diamantan.
  • @SpacemanSpiff: The IP used by Caracara15 is not in either range you identified. With respect to the range block I imposed, what do you mean by "small"?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bbb23: I think I mis-remembered or confused it with another recent range block, I went back to your talk page archives and didn't see "small" there, getting old I guess :) Back to this SPI result, Caracara15 looks like a duck to me, but I can't find a connection to Diamantan behaviorally. Blocking Caracara15 now, marking for close. —SpacemanSpiff 13:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

28 November 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Quacking loud, as obvious from the editing history: Now replacing Belarussian raions with districts, against the consensus of the community and just continuing what Derianus was doing.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Created right after the last sock of TC was blocked here in October.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

  • The account is  Possible. They are editing from the same location, but the other technical details don't match.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Additional information needed - @Ymblanter: The last sock of Tobias Conradi was blocked on 29 October [59], while 2015-10-06a started editing on 6 October. Also, can you cite some diffs to show similarities between alleged sock and the maser? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check the editing history, for instance, of Akciabrski District, where they just continue edits by Derianus, and Vileyka District, where they do the same Derianus did in Akciabrski District. There was a long discussion between me, Iryna Harpy, and Derianus on how the Belarussian districts should be named, but now I have difficulties locating it. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The contribution history seems to be a straightforward duck to me and I'm comfortable blocking on that instinct. However, since there's the discussion above, I'm not doing so; I'll instead ping The Blade of the Northern Lights for an additional opinion. —SpacemanSpiff 16:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this looks exactly like him. Still worth running a check, he has a tendency to have 3-4 different socks at the same time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to write "It was still worth running a check", I'm just having one of those days... :p. I'll block the account and do a mass rollback. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

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 January 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Succu suspected that it may be a sock based on Wikidata edits, though I doubt that it is probably not true. GZWDer (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • User has 9900 edits on Interlingua wiki ia:Special:Contributiones/Julius_Tominius and seems fluent in the language [63]. However, the global account was registered on 6 Jan 2016 and has amassed 113000 edits [64] over a dozen wikis, most of them apparently automated (~100000 on Wikidata), on geographic and species classifications. Obviously not a new user. Shares Conradi's style to write in bulleted lists [65]. Not sure, but could be... No such user (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't speak Interlingua and therefore can't comment on how well written the text in that diff is, but I had a look at some of the pages they created and they seem too inconsistent to be a fluent speaker to me. For example, ia:Entitate territorial administrative and ia:ISO 3166-2:CH don't have full sentences. Pages like ia:UTC+05:30 don't have a single word of Interlingua (as far as I can tell). A number of Tobias's sockpuppets have edited the Esperanto Wikipedia, it would not surprise me if he is now editing the Interlingua one. - Nikki (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see quite a few similarities between this user's pattern of editing and those of accounts identified as sockpuppets. The main topics they're editing are the same (country subdivisions, timezones, taxonomy). Adding subdivision types to the label on Wikidata (e.g. d:Special:Diff/290209626, d:Special:Diff/290286234) is very typical behaviour which I almost never see other people do. It's also a brand new account but clearly not a new user (far too many edits, far too much familiarity with the interface, using gadgets which are not enabled by default and third party tools). - Nikki (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  In progress. GZWDer Can you please tell me what this means: "though I doubt that it is probably not true"? Every time I pass by and look at it my eyes glaze over. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Global lock requested at meta. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 January 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar edit at Wikidata, create just after Julius Tominius blocked. GZWDer (talk) 16:52, 28 January 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]

 Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Because of the cross-wiki abuse, I'll request a global lock. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25 March 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

The same old "consistency overrides everything, including the sources" behaviour, totally ignoring other editors, resistance to discussion and continuous low-level edit-warring. The poor spelling and the "TC" account name themes are also characteristic Conradi. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 25 March 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]

  • @Andy Dingley: Some diffs that highlight the known behavior or a comparison between past socks would be helpful in evaluating the request. Mike V • Talk 17:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typical behaviour is this sort of thing (with associated page moves):

Despite whatever the past stable name is, COMMONNAME or the sources state, he gets the idea that "all must be consistent" and then just goes for it. He's happy to 3RR over other editors immediately. No discussion, on his or article talk: pages.

Acronyms are another target. All acronyms must go, no matter how appropriate they are in context.

He's also up to 3RR instantly now on some recent changes

There is no discussion. Any attempt elicits one word answers and instant dismissal. User talk page posts just get cleaned

This is bad editing all round. But it's also familiar bad editing, and it's quacking like Conradi.

The style looks like TC indeed though I can not recollect whether he had any interest in nuclear power stations.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think his greatest aspiration was to become a very small Perl script. Consistency was what he valued, so he would hit a subject target area and then just sledgehammer it. No matter what editorial subtlety (or sources) might suggest, he had to have everything the same way. Sometimes it would be to metricate everything (including, memorably, something about Pharoahs and cubits) recently it's that "power stations" should all be "power plants".
Now he's just trolling me. Bulk revert any changes with a cheery "lol". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the poor spelling too "easyer" "ponctuation" (others in article text) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the information. I ran a check and Trackteur appears to be technically Red X Unrelated to Tobias Conradi. Mike V • Talk 15:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As no action is being taken towards Trackteur in relation to Tobias Conradi, I'm closing this case. Mike V • Talk 16:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See m:Requests for comment/Globally blocked user active on iawiki. (the user also suspect Irn, but it is a normal user registered years ago.) GZWDer (talk) 15:20, 4 July 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]

  • No edits by either account. Good luck with your global lock requests. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Suspicious edits made from these three contributors - especially at Category:People from Kapyl Raion. I think all these accounts are being used as a block evasion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Per WP:DUCK, this is the globally banned user User:Tobias Conradi. Just block on sight.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

07 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Persistent sockpuppetry at Category:People from Valozhyn Raion and other categories. User is constantly reverting other people's edits and I can see a clear pattern that this IP is involved in sock puppetry. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe User:Pkbwcgs reads Wikipedia:SOCK. Edits done without creating an account and without logging out do not fall under the text in Wikipedia:SOCK. Also note that User:Pkbwcgs has been reported as a user vandalising category pages of Belarusian districts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belarus, reverting reverts using TW https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Pkbwcgs&offset=20171007193721&limit=30&target=Pkbwcgs . 78.55.74.227 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is sockpuppetry. You used 80.171.241.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2015-10-06a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to make edits and revert edits on the same page. 80.171.241.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked because the IP was being used as a block evasion to revert edits and now 78.55.74.227 is being used to revert the same edits on the same page. Do you think this is not sockpuppetry? Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pkbwcgs, what is your evidence that 78.55.74.227 and 80.171.241.16 are socks of 2015-10-06a? 85.180.58.182 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear evidence with their editing pattern that they have been involved in sock puppetry and all three of these users are blocked anyway. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Harassment by Pkbwcgs

At IP talk s/he accused the IP of vandalism. But there is no such thing. Then it was turned into SOCK allegations. There is no such socking.

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Category:People from Slawharad Raion, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Pkbwcgs, where is the vandalism by 78.55.74.227? 78.55.74.227 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The vandalism is you reverting other's edits continuously which is considered disruptive and you behaving like a sock puppet of User:2015-10-06a and I will start a discussion regarding sock puppetry from you and there is a clear pattern of it which I can see. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pkbwcgs, reverting another user is not enough to constitute vandalism. Here it is the other way around, the user that is reverted did vandalize. See disc at WP:CFD 78.55.74.227 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Blade of the Northern Lights: User:The Blade of the Northern Lights is an experienced administrator. I do not doubt this user at all that this user is making wrong edits. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is English Wikipedia made to allow people to spread false claims? 78.55.74.227 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be merged to an existing SPI, and CheckUser is most likely unnecessary (and probably won't be granted since CU usually don't publicly announce connections between IP and named user). -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 21:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This is the latest IP sock of Tobias, came back to revert his edits in. I've blocked for 24 hours, bringing here to document. —SpacemanSpiff 01:23, 27 October 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]

10 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The entire threads:

and the directly related page history of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests:

demonstrate that all the IPs are the same person. There is literally not a single other person on WP making the arguments this person is making, and their posts show the same non-native-English-speaker errors (dropped plurals, misuse of "is", non-idiomatic expressions like "claiming the untrue", etc.) in successive posts. One IP continues the argument from where the last left off. There is no question whatsoever that these are the same person.

This could have been okay – probably someone using an online access method that assigns them a new IP address from one of several pools.

However, this person crossed the line and masqueraded as multiple different editors, double-!voting in an RfC – first as 92.231.182.37 and second as 92.227.230.156, then denying (as 77.179.37.199) that they were doing so after being caught out [74]. That's socking, and there's no getting around it. The same editor also transgressed WP:3RR (at least 5 reverts), as documented at the ANI thread (which was hatted by one of the parties to the dispute, not by a neutral admin, and thus remains unresolved). Given both the socking and the 3RR, plus the attempt to disrupt an ongoing RfC, and the continued abuse of RM/TR to engage in movewarring [75] after the RfC about the same thing was opened, this party clearly needs to be blocked.

Also, given the show of "I know policy" (without actually having understood it properly), this is clearly not a new editor, and may well be someone evading a long-term block or ban. Another commenter at the ANI is sure this is a Russian who has been problematic for at least a couple of months, if that helps narrow it down to a named editor in some way. (I don't spend much time at SPI, so I'm not certain of all the methods used for determination).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Anon also just made a legal threat, in claiming to have been libeled [76]; did it again [77]. It just keeps getting worse and worse.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC); updated: 08:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some later stuff:

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:52, 14 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]

  • To state the obvious, this is only against WP:SOCK if the editor intentionally misled. I'm not convinced they did. See [85]; the IP has a point. If a single account posted both a vote and a comment, this wouldn't be any issue. Doing it with two different dynamic IPs and never claiming that you're a different person should therefore not be an issue. @SMcCandlish: Please supply diffs for the 3RR violation, and I'll look at that from the point-of-view of SPI. Other than that, though, I see this as more of an ANI issue. If there was an involved close, that can be challenged per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. ~ Rob13Talk 23:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BU Rob13: Please see above; I didn't just diff the person using multiple IPs, but using two IPs and claiming they're different people [86]. The 3RR+ is already in the ANI report; I wan't going to contest it being closed, I'm simply noting that it was closed by an involved non-admin, so no admin ever got around to examining the 3RR evidence. Since it's already archived, here's the 3RR diffs:
      • Anon WP:BLUDGEONs the RfC with rehash of their own !vote as a bunch of sections in the middle of the RfC [87]
        • I refactored this to the "Extended discussion" section [88].
      • Anon's revert 1, rvt 2, rvt 3 (all against me).
        • I left a 3RR warning at an IP's user talk [89] but realized that was probably pointless and did it again in edit summary [90]; I moved on after that (mindful of 3RR myself).
      • Anon's rvt 4 of different material in same discussion, plus their further injection of their !vote rationale into the RfC wording itself.
      • Then rvt 5, the 4th of the same material as before (this time against someone else).
    I stopped keeping track at that point. So, at least four reverts of the same thing against two editors, plus another revert against one of them in the same thread but different content. After warnings there and at WP:RM/TR [91] against disruptive editing. Plus, by that point, pretending to be two different anons, !voting twice, plus injecting the same material into the RfC as text walls and into the RfC's own wording (effectively 4 !votes). I don't think should be allowed to skate on some kind of technicality, especially since others reported the user as disruptive for a longer time period, including disruptive moves and incivility [92]. This would not be tolerated from a non-anon; it's only gone on this long due to the whack-a-mole issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The first diff you provided there doesn't show anything. It shows an IP stating he only voted once, with the other comment being labeled as a comment. This is accurate. I see no attempt to deny being the same person. Edit-warring takes two sides, and if I were to block the IP here, I'd also be inclined to take some action against you given the rather lame edit war. There really is little reason to refactor talk in the face of an editor reverting you. I've provided a final warning against disruptive editing in general, even if it does not violate 3RR. I don't believe that would be productive, so I'm leaving this as is. I'm closing with no other action (but also no prejudice against revisiting that ANI close). ~ Rob13Talk 13:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The anon saying '[the] statement by 92.227.230.156 says "Comment" ...' is unmistakable attribution of the commenter's own previous comments to another anonymous editor, ergo socking. And all edit-warring verges on lame; we have WP:3RR for a reason (to set a hard limit, though going up to that limit is not necessarily an entitlement), and we also have WP:REFACTOR for a reason. It's entirely permissible to refactor disruptive attempts to derail RfCs; it may even be covered by the vandalism 3RR exemption, especially when multiple editors were reverting it as RfC-disruptive. That's all I'll say about the matter, which has become stale – though I'm skeptical this anon will not do something else disruptive (probably at RM, given the history) in short order. There is no need to re-open the ANI or do anything else right now; the disruption attempts have not had much practical effect despite being annoying. I appreciate the additional warning, but I doubt the anon will see it, since they're not re-using any of the same IPs as far as I can tell; each one just lasts for a few minutes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< , 03:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is very clearly the globally banned user Tobias Conradi. The same provider, the same behavior: bold edits, wants to unify everything, resistance when the edits get reverted, sometimes personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: Ah! Glad someone has the experience and memory to figure out who's likely behind this. The amount of "policy-sneaky" wikilawyering being engaged in made it very clear this was someone who is not a noob, but my distance from the topic area made me unable to suss out who it might be. Is there a convenient way to merge this SPI page into the Conradi one? I don't really spend much time at SPI, so I don't know all the procedures and norms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the job for SPI clerks, they know how to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: But will they? This has been marked as closed, as is slated for archiving. Not sure if there's a notification process.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know, I am not a clerk, but I am sure there are enough eyes on this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hokay-dokay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk assistance requested: Please move this to Tobias Conradi and evaluate behavior against that master. ~ Rob13Talk 22:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing so that clerk will merge to Tobias Conradi and archive, there's too much disruption by his socks on this page now. —SpacemanSpiff 06:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Histmerged into SPI/Tobias Conradi. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

28 September 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Similar obsession with what words are used for settlements and settlement articles in general (see Talk:Gmina#Requested_move 7 December 2020, reverted move of List of Polish gminas to List of municipalities of Poland in Special:Diff/992384658, moves many templates to "infobox XXX municipality" that previously used a specific type of municipality, changed "Rayon" to "District" in their virtually second edit [93] (from the Kauffner SPI report)), was warned for logged out editing (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive#08 December 2020) using IPs that are very similar to the ones in the most recent archive, uses a username consisting of two words, one starting with T and one starting with C, which is similar to many past socks in the archive. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I was the one who opened the Kauffner SPI one year ago, which ended up stale. I made a severe error by conflating Kauffner and Conradi at the time, so yes, I opened a SPI for a wrong sockmaster. Possibly to keep the profile low and hide the trails, TerraCyprus went on a year-long hiatus and reactivated in this September. I endorse Ppperry's (re-)analysis. No such user (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, the IPs used to support TerraCyprus in the Gmina and Comune disputes resolve to Telefonica GmbH, just like the ones from SMcCandlish's collection above:
No such user (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Difficult to say for sure but quite plausible.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of IP from this provider show that this is most likely TC.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the filing format. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything in the archives is stale, but there's enough in the CU logs and and in the notes on cu-wiki, that in conjunction with the behavioral evidence here, and the username similarity, and Ymblanter's opinion, I have no qualms about calling this  Confirmed. glock requested. no No comment with respect to IP address(es) -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

28 February 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

For the record. Globally banned user. {{confirmed}} by my check on WD (CU's can ask me privately for how). Jasper Deng (talk) 21:15, 28 February 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]

  • These accounts have no edits on enwiki. I've requested locks based on the Wikidata CU results, but I don't think any action is needed locally. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tobias_Conradi/Archive&oldid=1143455541"