Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Apollo The Logician

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

24 August 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


comments here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Apollo_The_Logician Theroadislong (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster1912 (talk · contribs) added text to Martin Bormann stating that he was an atheist. After the editor was blocked I discovered a reliable source saying Bormann was an anti-Christian theist. Anti-Nazi appeared almost immediately and has reverted three times there (twice reverted by another editor, the third time by me). A bit bizarre as their first edit summary says Bormann was an atheist, but he then posts to an editors talk page[1] saying he wasn't, so I'm not sure what's going on. I think this needs a CU check as there aren't enough edits to be sure this isn't a coincidence. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wasn't going to do anything more as I was involved to the extent I was being reverted, but then I found other edits of mine being reverted by brand new editors. I can CU confirm that Anti-Nazi, The aran islands, Zoinky7 and Heypesto are the same editor. I cannot confirm that they are Apollo the Logician. However, they are editing from an IP that was blocked in the past as a proxy and again a few minutes ago by User:Ponyo. Not only that, Heypesto edited Apatheism an article edited by Apollo. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Ah, I see Ponyo dealt with this as I was editing here! Doug Weller talk 18:09, 24 August 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]

24 September 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same pattern of rapid editing, focus on Irish issues, repeated removal of "terrorist" categorisation. Common edits include Droppin Well bombing;[2][3] 1974 British Airways bombing attempt;[4][5]. Both accounts have edited extensively on Eoin O'Duffy. A common interest in Euroscepticism in the Republic of Ireland suggests that Irish eurosceptic may be another sock; see this edit[6] for confirmation. Checkuser requested to identify other possible accounts. RolandR (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]


26 September 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Immediately after the block of an IP-puppet, two new accounts spring up repeating the same edits. On Arthur Griffith, blocked IP[7] and two more; Arthur o'gara[8] and two more. On John Bingham (loyalist) ‎, blocked sock[9] and two more; Jamespames[10]. CU requested to identify other lurking socks. RolandR (talk) 00:44, 26 September 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]
Both now CU-blocked. Closing. GABgab 02:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

CheckUser  Confirmed socks. They're all using open proxies so I can't confirm it's Apollo The Logician - this is what I'm using to link to this master - [11] [12]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:29, 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.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

23 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

See all the comments from that user at User talk:89.100.39.82. Additionally, Ponyo (talk · contribs) has already blocked the IP address as a CheckUser block; I revoked talk page access. Please note, I am not requesting confirmation that this IP address belongs to Apollo The Logician; that's already completely obvious. I am just reporting this here for the record, and because Guy Macon (talk · contribs) requested we post the IP's involved. Yamla (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Self-admitted sockpuppet,[13] IP has been blocked. May I assume that the checkuser did not turn up any sleeper accounts? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

23 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I have no conclusive concrete evidence to support this allegation however I have a strong feeling that the above accounts are either all or partially linked to Apollo The Logician and was advised by @Guy Macon: to file a SPI with these accounts citing Apollo as the suspected sockmaster.

Since September I seem to be the focus point for a certain editors attention.

  1. 1 On or before the 10 September I received a notification that someone tried to log into my account from a new device. My response is simply to highlight my CID and this. No evidence of who by or where the attempt was made from was given, but maybe admins can?
  2. 2 On 16 September a new editor called South Derry Republican appears. Of their 8 edits to this site, 6 are focused on my talk page trying to make a fool out of me and tarnish me - though quite poorly as their claims have no substantiation. The only article they ever edited Great man theory gives no clues to who the editor may be.
  3. 3 South Derry Republican is then followed by Special:Contributions/190.52.205.69 who is obviously the same editor going by their style of typing on my talk page. They make only 3 edits all to my talk page. The IP is traced to Ecuador, so unless South Derry Republican was on vacation of whatever it is obviously a proxy or something of some sort.
  4. 4 Special:Contributions/47.90.85.47 didn't really do any harrasing, though did pop up to edit Apollo's scarcely known about or linked too 1939 Coventry bombing article and notify me of their view on a bit of it. They also had a run in with @Rms125a@hotmail.com: who is banned from Apollo's talk page, which ended up at ANI and resulting in the IP being blocked for being a proxy.
  5. 5 Special:Contributions/203.112.212.238 appears on 17 October to revert an edit I made [14]. This is their only edit before being blocked as a proxy. Their edit summary clearly hints that they have prior interactions with me.
  6. 6 Special:Contributions/200.87.180.226 appears later on on the 17 October to restore part of the edit. This is also a one time edit IP that is quickly blocked for being a proxy.
  7. 7 Special:Contributions/1.20.235.76 appears on 21 October and manages to make 3 edits (2 focused on my edits) before being blocked as a proxy. Their first edit is simply to revert me, however the second edit clearly implies that they have prior interactions with me.

I had originally thought that another editor may have been behind the login attempt and talk page harassment due to the timing of it with a then highly fraught article dispute resulting in an ANI report that ended on amicable terms with that editor who I do believe when they say they had nothing to do with it. However the harassment is continuing.

Why do I assume Apollo The Logician? As an editor with a fondness for sock puppets and using proxies who has strong reason for a grudge against me considering I was opposed to many of their highly dubious and POV driven edits and filed the original SPI against them, they are the most likely candidate. Guy Macon mentioned that there are certain lesser known about tools that can be used that may connect or shine a light on these editors.

Whilst at the end of the day these accounts are merely nuisances that end up blocked as proxies there is someone behind them. Mabuska (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Mabuska (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The newly added Special:Contributions/36.81.90.48 just pinged me to respond to this SPI and is obviously Apollo and ended up shortly afterwards blocked as a proxy. Mabuska (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Special:Contributions/46.209.214.235 who appeared after this SPI was filed to carry on Special:Contributions/1.20.235.76s argument considering it got blocked for being a proxy. IP has only edited this article either reverting or responding to me. Mabuska (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would take behavioural evidence to prove it however with the scant number of edits each IP makes before getting blocked, it would be nigh on impossible. More chance maybe with some of those accounts linked to the same open proxy. I would however note that the inclination of choosing Ireland or Irish republican and socialist related names for sock accounts is in line with Apollo's Irish republican socialist viewpoint. Whilst they have chosen a couple from the other side of the divide in the past, no doubt to try to look like someone else entirely, of the 20 you list below, 11 are Ireland related, with 8 of those being Irish republican related. Circumstantial however, and I would say having made a note on the sockmasters inclination, we may see less names related to such themes as a response. Mabuska (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you take Coogopoogo as referring to Eamonn Coogan which is the sole article they edited, that makes it 12 out 20 as Ireland related. And considering ARD RI's only ever article edit was this one, which is my second most edited article on Wikipedia with 542 edits, makes you wonder the intent of the edit. Mabuska (talk) 21:06, 23 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]
  • First, all of the recent IPs and proxies are blocked. Second, the following accounts are  Confirmed to each other and were all operating from the same open proxy:

26 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


As the previous reported and discovered socks have been blocked as being Apollo, a new account has appeared to continue harrasing me.

Having pointed out in the previous SPI that Tobermore was my 2nd most edited article that one of Apollo's socks had edited (User:ARD RI), a brand new account appeared called Lurgan boi making a dubious edit no doubt for me to revert. They restored it using a personal attack edit summary. After being reverted once more they post this personal attack laden response.

This response betrays a sense of prior history with me and is all too similar to the comments left by the Apollo sockpuppets User:South Derry Republican/Special:Contributions/190.52.205.69 on my talk page such as [15].

What also confirms for me that this is no new editor is how in their second edit they are well versed with Wikipedia to find cleanup templates to add to articles [16].

Keeping in line with Apollo traits the Tobermore edit they are intent on enforcing focuses on the Irish revolution, Official IRA as well as getting rid of the word murdered [17]. I had left a simple comment at Lurgan boi's talk page [18]. A new user I'm pretty sure would ask what was meant.

Obviously a proxy is probably being used again however a checkuser may find other accounts linked to this one. Mabuska (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Mabuska (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer me this... how did you find this SPI considering you were never notified of it? Yes I mentioned SPI to you at Tobermore talk but just the abbreviation SPI so you must either have already knew what a SPI was or you've been looking at my edit history or keeping a close eye on Apollos SPIs. Cat out of the bag? Mabuska (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Scolaire: - Guy Macon beat me to it but notification is not a requirement as was made clear by this comment, so no naughtiness at all. Also how do you know it isn't him? Lapsed Pacifist and Gob Lofa, who you and I know well, were different in many different ways and the same in many others and found to be the same person. I note no defense from Lurgan boi or the IP (obviously Apollo commenting below) in regards to their behaviour, indeed the IPs admission that Lurgan boi's IP is going to change soon is basically an admission of guilt. Mabuska (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if this duck isn't one, then Lurgan boi should be blocked as a sock of South Derry Republican, who was determined by those who are more experienced in this field than ether you or I Scolaire to be a sock of Apollo. Mabuska (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day regardless of whoever Lurgan boi and the other socks are or aren't, for all their personal attacks and claims of me being clueless, a "fucking idiot", a history ignorant sap etc. etc. Lurgan boi and the other socks are easily shown to be that themselves with them the ones with egg on their face. If Apollo or whoever wants to keep embarrassing themselves with all these socks arguing things they clearly know nothing about then by all means let me get some more hens. Mabuska (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: I had a suspicion chrishazzard1981 might have been a sock as well. I will ask @Scolaire: to compare Chris hazzard1981's and Lurgan boi's talk page styles and see how different they are yet here they are both confirmed to the same proxy address. Mabuska (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

what makes you think I made an edit to purposely draw your attention? How was I supposed to know I needed to educate you on the history of Ireland?

No, it doesn't at all. explain how that indicates a prior history with you?

I have seen that template on other articles. I also have edited as various ips in the past.

The offical ira are not even mentioned in the article. What are you on about?

I already explained, murdered makes no sense in that context, see talk page.

I had no idea what the fuck "welcome apollo" meant, I just ignored and that it was just some fella being a weirdo.Lurgan boi (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabuska: Are you saying you never notified the user about an SPI against him? That was naughty.Scolaire (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't criticize Mabuska for not notifying socks. Firstly, there is no requirement to do so. Secondly, he was advised not to.[19] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Sorry. Scolaire (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: I personally am indifferent to what happens here because I am sure lurgan boi's ip address will just change soon but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You are also misrepresenting what Ponyo actually said. He/she advised Mabuska not to warn me on my apollo account and nothing else.197.250.8.162 (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intervene in the previous SPI, and now I'm sorry I didn't. Lurgan boi is obviously winding Mabuska up, which means he's almost certainly a sock, but neither he nor South Derry Republican look anything like Apollo. Compare this, this, this or Lurgan boi's comments above with this, this or any of Apollo's contributions to user talk (including his own) or article talk pages. Also compare the verbosity of this edit summary to the terseness or (more often) absence of Apollo's edit summaries. Trolls should be blocked. If they are sockpuppets of a blocked troll there may be some benefit in an SPI. But there is no benefit in tying a troll or his socks to a blocked user who very obviously isn't him. Scolaire (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has experience trolling and socking knows that socks can purposely vary those aspects of their activity that investigators look for. If two users pass the WP:DUCK test they are almost certainly the same person, but if they fail the duck test, the conclusion you should reach is "insufficient evidence", not "I know that they aren't the same person." You need to recalibrate your "who very obviously" detector to account for clever socks who try to appear not to be related. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. Scolaire (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon:Guy I truly am flattered that you consider me to be clever. @Mabuska: stop pretending you are being harassed. You make a mockery of actual harassment.197.250.8.162 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I think that, as with the Clare man group from my last check who this is  Confirmed to, this is trolling and it's not technically clear that it's Apollo The Logician behind the accounts. Latest batch of socks:

11 November 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Obvious sock is obvious - the editor interaction utility is flashing bigtime... Other edits and edit summaries very much match Apollo's style, though the left-wing pretence has finally been dropped in favour of outright... well, look at the user page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "flashing bigtime"? Those are not exactly a wide range of topics, they are all related to Irish politics.

Regarding your other claims you need to provide evidence. You cant just say "x is obviously the same". I look forward to you substantiating these claims.Van danken (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New account apparently already knows about obscure topics such as wikihounding (per recent edit summaries), using this as an excuse to revert edits restoring consensus versions of articles. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

all I had to do was do a kuick search and see if stalking was allowed per wiki policy. It really was not that hard.Van danken (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

17 November 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


The creation of the account coincides with the latest block of sockpuppet 177.72.1.102. The subject matter, type of edits and grammatical 'style' holds some similarities to Apollo's edits, as do the aggressive and abrasive nature of messages when challenged. There have been a lot of edits in the last couple of days indicating some experience with Wikipedia in the past. For these reasons I believe it is worthwhile to perform a check. Brough87 (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Brough87 (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Brough you have to provide evidence. You can not just say "x, y and z are all similar". You have to come up with some sort of proof or strong evidence that demonstrates this is the case. So far your expose or whatever you want to call this is very poor. Regarding the IP how is that any strong sort of evidence? literally tens of thousands of people edit wikipedia so two accounts or ips becoming active at the same time is not really that bizarre in my opinion. Why would someone use both an IP account and a regular acount at the same time? Would one not suffice?Kim song-chi (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • The following are  Confirmed:


19 November 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Creation of account coincides with other blocks of Apollo's sockpuppets. A number of edits have been made of a large size indicating experience of wikipedia's processes. The subject matter as demonstrated by the [Interaction Analyser] shows similar editing habits. The grammatical style also seems to show some similarities. For these reasons I believe investigation is needed. Brough87 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Brough87 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]


25 November 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


As before, multiple edits in quick succession, similar subject matter, same types of edits. Edits demonstrate a familiarity with wikipedia processes and account creation coincides with the blocks of other proven sockpuppets, for this reason I believe further investigation is necessary. Brough87 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Brough87 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • I've come to suspect Etruscanman114 of being a sock as well. Their sudden appearance, mostly aggrevating others, removal of terrorist from an article on a paramilitary group and edits to articles of left wing socialist parties fit the profile. The fact it took them only 3 edits before they decided to edit an article on an Irishman shows an eagerness to get back to where they want to be. Having said that it would have been better to maybe wait a bit longer to let evidence build up but an investigation is necessary even if only to find out if there are other accounts linked to this one. Mabuska (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sudden appearance? What is so sudden about it? I just created an account and started editing like everyone else. Or maybe editing an Irishman just shows I am interested in multiple topics? Bizarre interpretation there.Etruscanman114 (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

28 November 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Same interests: philosophy and Irishness. Both have edited Argument from poor design and Evolutionary argument against naturalism. Will proceed to block the sock and close this report, but need to keep the paper trail. Favonian (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Wow! That was quick. :) Favonian (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15 December 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Similar to previous cases for this editor – has the same interests: philosophy, Religion, and Ireland related topics. All have edited Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union. Other editing similarities with User:Etruscanman114, User:177.72.1.102 and other previously blocked socks. Most became active after previous socks blocked. As a previous reporter put it, "the editor interaction utility is flashing bigtime". Mojoworker (talk) 20:39, 15 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]

 Confirmed plus:

18 December 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Account created a couple days after the most recent sockpuppet investigation of this person was closed. Third edit was to revert an edit on Richard Carrier made 2 days before their account was created. User:Michael O'hara (sockpuppet) had edited Richard Carrier a day before being blocked. Eighth edit was to revert an edit on Eoin O'Duffy made a few weeks before their account was created. Special:Contributions/177.86.156.2 (sockpuppet) had repeatedly edited Eoin O'Duffy and one of the accounts blocked along with Michael O'hara on 15 December was named User:Eoghan O'Duffy.

Adding: Pseudo1981 and Michael O'hara have both edited Richard Dawkins (see history), philosophy of history (see history) and Carl Jung (see history). Also Pseudo1981 and User:James lavery (blocked in 26 October 2017 SPI) have both edited Central Bar bombing 1975 (see history). Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Editing similarities are not uncommon.Pseudo1981 (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


19 December 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Targeting the same area (Ireland and IRA): Irish Brigade (Spanish Civil War), Sean Connolly, Fenian dynamite campaign, etc. Similar edits: [26][27], [28][29]. GABgab 20:35, 19 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]

20 December 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Created just days after the last sock was blocked at this article, follows the same "real name" naming style and is pursuing the same exact line of argumentation on the same subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What "line of argument", specifically? That the entry on ID is non-neutral? I think the entire world has picked up on this now, including Wikipedia's cofounder Larry Sanger, who slammed its "appalling bias". I'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle, MjolnerPants, and throwing about accusations of sock puppetry when you can't answer criticisms - of both the article and your defense of it - isn't going to help you. Sam T. (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing that ID is science, and that our article is biased against it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Well, well. I happened to click through from Michael O'Hara's blocked account, and lo! I find myself accused of being a sock. What happened to notifying users on their talk pages? Paranoid, some? My guess is that Apollo's account will geolocate to the US, where most editors reside. I, on the other hand, hail from Melbourne, Victoria, and created the Sam T. account recently after some time editing from a raw IP. Thanks, gentlemen. Your gracious apology is accepted. Feel free to take a towel and wipe the egg from your collective face. Sam T. (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

08 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


As with other socks of Apollo, this latest account is editing the same circle of articles with the same tone and same general intent. In terms of specific examples, while there are other more general editing patterns which indicate overlap, the most clear-cut include:

(Personally I have held-off on SPI for this user's socks for some time. But, after years of attempting to assist the user, am kinda sick of the result being ad hominem attacks in response). Guliolopez (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I was going to file a SPI on this account myself when I got time. The editor is virtually a copy of ATL's sphere of thinking and article scope: Irish republicanism, socialism and religion/atheism and an Irish based moniker. Also ATL had a habit of stalking my edits with some of his now blocked accounts and I find it curious how they came to the Jean McConville article and even left an edit summary quoting my name [30] that makes it clear they were either following my edit history, or had it on a copy and pasted watchlist from another account added to their own. Unless of course new editors simply appear and start checking out edit histories of articles to make reverts. Mabuska (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

08 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Previously I had reported several accounts for stalking and harassment of me, all clearly linked to ATL as I was instrumental in their eventual indef block. Most of my edits since then have been making tidy up edits, reverts or talk page discussion and the appearance of new IP accounts with no prior history reverting me appeared to cease. More recently however I have been making more standard edits and as a result new IPs have appeared to revert me all of which betray an interest in Irish republicanism along the lines of ATL.

Firstly whilst addressing the extreme WP:SYN and WP:OR issues at British war crimes and this IP appears simply to revert me [31], [32]. The IP is traced to a proxy server in Nigeria. Then this very similar IP number appears using the same "ibid" edit summary as well as this one that shows a clear interest in or understanding of the IRA. This IP despite how similar it is to the Nigerian one is a UK located proxy server. Both are currently blocked for 3 months per ({{webhostblock}}). This Russian based IP then appeared to revert me also however has also since been blocked (6 months) with the article placed under protection [33]. I feel they should all be indef blocked as socks of ATL, or at the very least "Clare man" per the admin comments here.

After this I made a manual of style edit to Gerard Doherty to which the IP 103.9.78.137 suddenly appears to revert, and then reverted again however this time with an edit summary that betrayed their Irish republican slanted bias on the issue. Considering this IP has only three edits to their name, two of which were reverting me and the very first one a random article edit over a week before, and the fact the IP is traced to Vietnam I'd say it is safe to bet that it is a proxy address. I left them this user talk message and they suddenly stopped their actions, however since then I have had quite a lot of notifications of attempts to log into my account from a new device, which last happened months ago at the height of ATL's last bout of harassment of me.

I doubt all these relatively new IP accounts, all of which seem to be proxy addresses, that suddenly appeared simply to revert my edits quite recently aren't the same person, and a check should be done to see if other linked sock accounts can be found and blocked. Mabuska (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must also point out that IP 185.62.85.68 had made two edits previous to a Korean article, and the recently reported possible ATL sock CumannachEireannach has also made edits to a Korean based article. I doubt it is coincidence. Mabuska (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Mabuska (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the other 3 are already blocked and now the other one is it will suffice, thank you. Mabuska (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

14 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Doug Weller talk 19:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed and blocked, not yet tagged as going offline now. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Some very similar edits, a similar talk page style, and other edits showing a similar point of view or interest in the same topics.

  • Elizabeth O'Farrell: Apollo, 80..., Dia
  • Talk: Elizabeth O'Farrell: 80... – typical Apollo argumentative style
  • Euroscepticism in the Republic of Ireland: Apollo, 80..., Dia – not as persuasive as the above, but evidence of overlap between the three
  • Saoradh: Apollo, Dia
  • Easter Rising: Apollo, 80...
  • Left Unity (UK): Apollo, Dia
  • Continuity Irish Republican Army: Apollo, Dia
  • Counties of Ireland: Apollo, 80...
  • Bobby Beggs (low-traffic article): Apollo, 80...
  • St. Fintan's High School (low-traffic article): Apollo, 80...
  • Hard science fiction (relatively low-traffic article): Apollo, 80...

I haven't requested a checkuser, but I have no objection if somebody else wants to. Scolaire (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

13 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Editor interaction report, with IP, Apollo, & most recent named sock

New mobile, same old edits. At this point active for 30 hrs only. Main edits are, as before, adding Irish language name to first sentence of eg Irish art, then reverting when removed. Also removing the orientation of small Irish political parties, another interest seen before. Note IP 80.111.42.187 just blocked on 4 March (section before). This from the archived section for 25 November 2017 also applies "As before, multiple edits in quick succession, similar subject matter, same types of edits. Edits demonstrate a familiarity with wikipedia processes ....". No need to notify - he's turned up while I am doing this (below).

Thanks to User:Scolaire for spotting - this copied from my talk page: "Hi. Have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician/Archive#04 March 2018. The two socks added "lan-ga" templates at Belfast Telegraph, Anderstown News, People Before Profit Alliance, Solidarity (Ireland), Independent Alliance (Ireland) and others. Do you think another SPI is warranted in the light of this? --Scolaire (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid so. I'll get on it - thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

Irish names:

- and others.

Political parties:

- and others. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

So two types of edit(s) that I made were also made by another editor. Is that really much of a suprise or even enough evidence to convict someone?80.111.231.187 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, adding "lang-ga" to articles is not traditional Apollo behaviour, as far as I can remember. He seems to have only started it in his Dia is ainm dom / 80.111.42.187 incarnation. Thus the addition of "lang-ga" to multiple articles by 80.111.231.187, as well as the proximity of the IP addresses, ties it to a confirmed sock of Apollo rather than directly to Apollo himself. Nonetheless, I think the evidence is compelling that they are all the same person. Apologies to Johnbod for not making this clear on his talk page. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If any further sockpuppetry is found, it's time to consider WP:THREESTRIKES (though Apollo has had substantially more than three strikes) and consider the user WP:CBAN'ed under that policy. --Yamla (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence since the opening of this case: Apollo's aggressive talk page style here and here. Scolaire (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding 188.141.3.226. This edit by Dia is ainm dom (confirmed sock) was restored by him a few days later. Apollo and 80.111.42.187 both edited Bobby Beggs, a very low-traffic article, and 188.141.3.226 edited Beggs (surname). An edit by 188.141.3.226 at Gaels was restored by 80.111.231.187 the following day. 188.141.3.226 has added "lang-ga" templates at Independent Nationalist and Leo Varadkar. --Scolaire (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re closing - 4 days is too old!? And over St Patrick's day?! Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

25 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Classic Apollo trolling behaviour at

  • Young Fine Gael: [34]
  • Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles: [35], [36], [37] (needling both sides in the discussion), [38] ("Also is it not innocent until proven guilty?")
    • Note also that it was 80.111.231.187 whose addition of content to several articles was the reason for the discussion in the first place.
  • Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader): [39], [40], [41]
  • User talk:Bastun: [42]
  • User talk:Scolaire: [43] Scolaire (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I am the editor in question here. Scolaire this evidence is very weak. Not only are the edits you have provided not trolling (I would be interested in hearing why you think the edits are trolling) but you have also not provided any evidence that "Apollo" did similar "trolling" as you have called it.80.111.164.98 (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

I blocked 80.111.164.98 for one week. The other IP's edits are too old. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03 April 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

1.I added completely different content to "Apolo The Logician" to Patrick Pearse's article. How would both edits being "controversial" prove or be evidence for something?

2.Ok so we have both added page view statistics. Is that the only other "similarity"? If so you are really lacking in the evidence department.

3.I let everyone know in my edit summary if I am adding viewer statistics. Apollo The Logician evidently did not.

4.Simply stating that a post of mine has "Apollo written all over it" is not evidence for anything. Anybody can claim anything has anything written over anything. What matters is if you have the evidence to back it up. You have provided no evidence whatsoever.195.22.229.22 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re 3: Uh-huh yeah, sure you do. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well maybe not 100% of the time but 75% of the time. Apoolo The Logician did it 0% of the time,195.22.229.22 (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Blocked one month as a proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09 May 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Account created in April 2018, obvious similarity in name. Edits to Siol nan Gaidheal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), nationality changes (from Spanish to Basque: 1, 2, many others; from Spanish to Catalan: 1, 2, many others), general interest in Celtic/Gaelic articles and socialist/communist articles. Account is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

I've had several encounters with ApolloCarmb in Venezuela related articles, where they engaged in POV pushing of socialism ([62][63][64][65][66][67][68] and many others). After the block, I patrolled their contributions to improve NPOV. The user has also made nationality changes from British to Scottish and from British to Welsh, removed the "terrorist" categorisation or rephrased the term ([69][70][71][72] and others) and like The Logician ([73][74]), they have edited in articles related to the 2016 DNC email leak in the US to question the Russian involvement in the cyber attack ([75][76][77][78]). I'll leave the edit warring report here in case it is needed.--Jamez42 (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their old user page can reveal some similarities as well. Apollo the Logician created the now deleted Embassy of Cuba, Dublin while Apollocarmb created the article Cuba–Ireland relations. Both users have a strong socialist and Irish bias.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2018 (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]


13 May 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Began editing soon after the block of ApolloCarmb. Edits to Ruaraidh Erskine, Scots National League, Pan-Celticism, all of which recently were edited by ApolloCarmb. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

14 May 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The IP admitted being a sockpuppet of the Apollo The Logician ([79][80][81]), arguing that "they were not blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia" after I filed a complaint to the sysops about ApolloCarmb ([82]), who edited in the article of the Venezuelan presidential elections and also edited its Spanish version; the IP reverted my editions in the article after the block [83][84]. In the English Wikipedia it shares the same pattern of editing Celtic/Gaelic articles and it has been previously suggested that the IP belongs to Apollo. It is currently blocked for a year and was also blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia.--Jamez42 (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Jamez42 (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Jamez42 (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]


20 May 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This IP has started editing a week ago and from the first moment I suspected it belonged to Apollo The Logician, but I wanted to wait some time to watch its editing pattern.

  • Like ApolloCarmb, Apollo The Logician's last sockpuppet, the IPs have edited solely in the article of the Venezuelan presidential election, 2018 pushing for a pro government POV.
  • Like ApolloCarmb ([85][86][87][88][89] and others), when referencing, 72.35.247.10 has used mostly TeleSur sources, which is funded by the Venezuelan government, and only includes the link as reference information ([90][91][92][93][94] and others) despite recommendations to include other information such as article title, name of source and dates ([95][96])
  • Like ApolloCarmb, 72.35.247.10 has made crosswiki edits in the Spanish version of the same article.
  • THe IP has dismissed edit warring messages ([97][98][99][100]) and instead has asked to argue the revertions in the talk page ([101][102][103][104]), a tactic also employed by ApolloCarmb.
  • 72.35.247.18 has restored 72.35.247.10's editions, which suggest a single purpose IP pattern. Notice also de similiratiry between both IPs.
  • 72.35.247.10 has also engaged in whitewashing ([105][106][107][108]) Jamez42 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should also comment on the lack of civility of the IP ([109][110][111][112][113]) --Jamez42 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And [114] --Jamez42 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Looking at ApolloCarmb's editing history it is certainly clear that it is most certainly not the case that ApolloCarmb solely edited the Venezuelan Presidential Election article. He/she edited a wide range of articles. He/she was also Irish, while I am Norwegian (Google my IP address). Also I am not edit warring. Just look at the revision history. I should also add that the accusation that both I and ApolloCarmb were/are "pro-government" has been made without evidence, that which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 72.35.247.10 (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those IPs do not locate to Norway. They are owned by a proxy. One of the two was already blocked for 31 hours. However, I have blocked a range as a proxy block for three months. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23 May 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


I originally came across ApolloCarmb, a sock of Apollo The Logician. Claíomh Solais does not seem to be very active in Venezuelan-related articles and soon after the sock ApolloCarmb and a potential IP sock were blocked, Claíomh Solais appeared in a Venezuelan article.

Claíomh Solais and Apollo appear to have similar interests including user pages with Irish and Socialist related material.[1][2] A closer look using the Editor Interaction Analyser shows that Apollo and Claíomh Solais had a similar edit pattern. This shows potential behavioural evidence. For instance, after the two were involved in various articles that had similar content, the only edits that they ever make to Talk:Fidel Castro is one trying to build a consensus surrounding lede material, with the edit happening minutes apart. Looking at their Interaction Timeline, you can see that shortly after Apollo's account was created, they both edit articles like Frank Ryan (Irish republican), Left Unity (UK) and others.

In other instances, Claíomh Solais attempts to create a consensus to unblock Apollo and did not believe they were a sockpuppet. Here, Claíomh Solais states that the calls to block Apollo for their behavior "are just as needlessly politically partisan". In a second block attempt discussing sockpuppets, Claíomh Solais states about Apollo that "I think he/she should be unblocked if there is no solid proof. The criteria used looks quite subjective." I find the "he/she" usage interesting, as the recently blocked IP used this as well ("He/she edited a wide range of articles. He was also Irish, while I am Norwegian").

I am submitting this out of caution as I do see potential behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry mentioned in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations article. In advance, thank you for any oversight and I do not wish that sockpuppetry is the case here. Again this is respectively being done out of caution. --ZiaLater (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Since this investigation was opened, I'm also going to request an investigation on IP 185.62.87.16 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which has had a little interaction with Claíomh Solais. It started editing in the article of British war crimes (1, 2, 3, 4), where it was warned of disruptive editing. After six months without editing, it suddenly started editing again on Venezuela related articles after the last suspected IPs were blocked and the article of the presidential elections was protected. The other topics edited were Syria, North Korea and Stalinism, similar topics in which ApolloCarmb was involved, in some cases engaging in whitewashing. I should also mention again the plan referencing without details such as both the author and source name or dates (1, 2, 3), an editing pattern shared with ApolloCarmb and previous blocked IPs. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is strong behavioral evidence here. Neutralitytalk 03:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add Leftwinguy92 to the investigation, for the following reasons:

BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yous all need to stop with the hysteria. It's very amusing to watch yous hysterically accuse people due to some similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.62.85.68 (talk • contribs)

A range block is certainly in order here. --Yamla (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Apollo, although I do share some of the same interests as him (an interest in Irish affairs and socialism/anti-imperialist topics is hardly an uncommon trait) and would probably buy him a pint IRL. I am happy for a checkuser to be done to prove we are not the same people. Some edits that kind of show otherwise; on the Frank Ryan article here is an edit where I re-add information Apollo removed and (I could be wrong as this was an anonymous account) I think Apollo left a message on my talk sometime last year.

Could be wrong and if so apologies for presuming bad faith here, but this request appear to be sourgrapes from Zia for me asking that the WP:NPOV be applied to the article Venezuelan presidential election, 2018 (I do not think that Wikipedia should be used as a propaganda platform for the US government and its proxies to try and incite a coup d'etat against President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, as we are supposed to be neutral). Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, didn't see that this had already been cleared up. Cool. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Claíomh Solai and Leftwinguy92 are Red X Unrelated to the master and to each other. Leftwinguy92 is  Confirmed to Torygreen84 (talk · contribs · count). Blocked and tagged accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torygreen84. Closing case. Sro23 (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 June 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

WP:DUCK for an IP in the same range as many previous Apollo socks (see archive for 80.111.42.187, 80.111.231.187, 80.111.164.98, 80.111.230.60, etc.) Same editing pattern, similar articles, same talk page style. Quack. @Jon C.:. Refiling properly for User:Bastun. Stickee (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Nobody even bothered to inform me this was happening so that already gives me an idea of how robust and fair this process is going to be. An interest in socialism and Irish nationalism is hardly anything rare now is it? There are numerous Irish political parties dedicated to those things (Sinn Fein, Workers Party of Ireland, Saoradh, Communist Party of Ireland, Irish Republican Voice etc etc). Now, regarding my "talk page style", in what manner is it the same? You have simply linked a talk page comment by me with no explanation whatsoever as to how the style is similar, which is not very convincing. So far I am not getting the impression that this is a very judicial process or not a Kangaroo court.80.111.179.171 (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

12 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Edit warring, disruptive editing and POV pushing in articles about Marxism, Ireland and Venezuela, among other topics. Quack. @Pinkbeast:@JzG: Pinging other editors involved: Jamez42 (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that this IP was relatively inactive until @80.111.179.171: was blocked. I suggest these blocks are extended like with previous IPs, provided that's the decision. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this IP to Jamesz' and JzG's attention simply because they are clearly NOTHERE, but I did notice the Venezuela thing was not new. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

01 September 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Identical edit to 80.111.164.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on Arthur Griffith, see the Michael Laffan line: 1 and 2. Also edits to Sean Connolly and other similar interests. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

05 September 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Started editing shortly after the last IP range was blocked. Has edited Authoritarian socialism, Red fascism, David Kirkwood and Peter Casey (businessman), and most edits are related to socialism, communism, Venezuela or/and Ireland. Jamez42 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also adding 2601:140:4000:AA11:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), same editing pattern. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And 2600:1:F17B:78C:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --Jamez42 (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

15 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP is obviously aware of policies (warning another user for 3RR[115] and citing WP:TERRORIST[116]). He is focused with removing information that some left-oriented groups are terrorist or extremist[117][118][119][120] etc. This is mentioned as a behavioral evidence in past SPIs. So are Venezuela-related edits[121].

He has also edited several Irish/Marxist biographies like Aodh de Blácam, Henry Hamilton Blackham, Edward Arthur Thompson, Alexander Johnson, Patrick J. Whelan. Quite peculiar for someone, who according to WHOIS information, lives in Moscow. Quacks loud. --Pudeo (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing mentioned in the 09 May 2018 SPI are nationality changes from Spanish to Catalan. This IP has done it as well: [122][123][124][125]. This includes changing the classification of Spanish from "nationality" to "citizenship". --Pudeo (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Similar policitcs and a knowledge of wikipedia policy is hardly proof of anything. There are plenty of people who have left-wing views and know of wikipedia policy. Also that was not a Venezuela related edit, that was an edit to the rogue state article. Oh and another thing those edits have nothing to do with "Catalan" changes, please don't lie, it's clear if you click the links that Catalan is not added. You do realise the reviewer of the case can just check for themselves rIght? 191.101.42.242 (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the May 2018 SPI also mentioned changing 'Spanish' to 'Basque' which you did now – the point anyway being anti-Spanish regionalism. Also the IP you are using is probably a {{colocationwebhost}} based on myip.ms WHOIS. --Pudeo (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Latest SPI resulted in 191.101.42.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) being blocked and this new IP got active again just 5 hours later. This dynamic IP is located in Ireland.

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Note that Apollo is currently seeking an unblock, per his talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The UTRS request from 2018-12-24 was deemed abusive enough that this user was banned from further requests for 12 months. I do not believe there's currently an open unblock request. Realistically, given the chronic abuse, there's no chance this user would be unblocked in the near future anyway. --Yamla (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

29 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I'm opening again the IP investigation request since a couple of hours ago its block expired, because of its edit behaviour, of its disruptive editing and recent reverts, its incivility and its disregard for the several warnings. Jamez42 (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

11 January 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP started editing just a couple of hours before the last investigated IP's unblock request was declined ([135] and [136] respectively, for reference. The IP edits mostly in articles about Stailinism and the Soviet Union ([137][138][139]), Venezuela ([140][141][142]) and alligned countries such as Bolivia and Nicaragua ([143][144], respectively). Like previous socks, the IP usually references only providing the URL of the webpage, using sources such as TeleSur and has engaged in disruptive editing, edit warring ([145][146][147][148]) and uncivility ([149][150]). Pinging involved users who might be interested in the investigation: @יניב הורון:@TheTimesAreAChanging:@Galassi: Jamez42 (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PD: IP also blanked its talk page, a common practice among previous socks, and needless to say it has ignored all of my previous warnings. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

15 January 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


I wouldn't be requesting an investigation if I didn't have at least some suspicion the the accounts are related. I would like to ask if the following edit behaviour is enough to request a checkuser:

  1. Activity only dates back as early as 19 November 2017 ([151]), two months after Apollo's first socks were blocked.
  2. Redratatoskr edited in the article of the 2018 Venezuelan presidential election on 12 May 2018 ([152][153]), making progovernment edits, shortly after the sock ApolloCarmb, which edited extensively in the article, was blocked two days before.
  3. After eight months of inactivity, on 11 January Redratatoskr started editing again ([154][155]) a day after Apollo's last IP 95.153.48.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for a year.
  4. Similar edit interests: Socialism, Marxism, the United Kingdom ([156][157]) and Venezuela ([158][159])

I should note that unlike previous socks, Redratatoskr has not edited disruptively and has only employed possible weasel wording, which is why I'm requesting the investigation on the grounds of a possible block evasion. Jamez42 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the editor has also contributed to the Second inauguration of Nicolás Maduro article, which was also edited by Apollo's last sock. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Hi there. I know this is simply a misunderstanding. I encourage whoever reviews this investigation to use the CheckUser tool because it would provide definitive evidence that I'm not a sockpuppet. While it feels a bit like a violation of privacy, it's more important to me to have this allegation put to rest and I trust whoever is using the tool is doing so appropriately.

In response to the specific points:

  1. Edits only go back as far as 19 November 2017 because I registered my account on that day. I had been inspired by Bernie Sanders' run for office, so I wanted to help clean up and polish the Democratic Socialists of America wiki page, and to help keep information up-to-date on the caucuses within the group.
  2. I only began editing a Venezuela-related page 6 months later. I'd like to point out that within this time, I edited numerous other unrelated pages ([160][161][162][163]). If I were a sockpuppet of a pro-government troll, then why bother editing all of these other completely unrelated pages?
  3. I have absolutely no history of vandalism or disrupting pages -- in fact, many of my edits have included fixing broken grammar ([164][165]), removing vandalism ([166]), and adding sources for claims that needed citations ([167][168][169][170][171]). If my goal were to be disruptive, clearly I would not have gone through the trouble of upkeeping various pages and removing vandalism.
  4. This is not the first time Jamez42 and I have edited the same page. In fact, I actually went out of my way to fix the formatting of one of the pro-opposition polls he posted on the election page. ([172]). Again, if I were a sockpuppet and a disruptor, why would I not only be fixing unrelated pages but help fix one of the formatting errors of someone whom I clearly disagree with, especially a formatting error on a poll which is completely against my own perspective?
  5. Jamez42 claims that I had eight months of inactivity only to appear again a day after Apollo's IP was banned. While it's understandable why he may think this, he's actually incorrect. I had tried to log in dozens of times before my 11 January 2019 edit, but I forgot my password (https://i.imgur.com/5I8o8hy.png). After more guessing, I finally got my password correctly and was able to log in and change it to something I could remember.
  6. Apollo seems to have made almost exclusively mobile edits (please check his contributions page) -- I've only exclusively used visual edits on my desktop, as my contributions page shows, and no mobile edits.
  7. I think Jamez42 makes my own case for me -- we simply had similar interests. Similar interests, however, do not make someone a sockpuppet. Furthermore, Apollo also edited pages I've never touched -- philosophy, Ireland, etc.

I hope this misunderstanding can be addressed quickly and put to rest.

Kind regards,

--Redratatoskr (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Insufficient evidence. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20 January 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I open the request once again given that the IP's block has expired and once again has started editing disruptively and blanking its page. I should note that the IP seems to be Ireland and that there's currently a notification open in the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard Jamez42 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

This is the third sockpuppet investigation you have made against me were you accuse me of being Apollo The Logician. How many more are you going to make before you get your desired result? Surely there is a rule against incessantly recreating the same sockpuppet investigation. Stop wasting peoples time and move on.80.111.40.28 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Blocked for two months. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

30 January 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]
  • IPs are cooperating to push a pro-government POV in the 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election article, including changing "independent" to "imperialist" and defining protests as violent [173][174][175]
  • It should be noted that the edit includes the reaction of Mickey Brady, a MP of the Irish Sinn Fein party, and that its reference is included as a bare URL, without title, date or any other important information, like previous socks have
  • Both IPs continue to revert edits despite warnings in talk page. Jamez42 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. My ip changes periodically so obviously there is a change by 1 digit in IP Address. This is a bad faith accusation by user Jamez42 who does not wish others to add the content they remove despite being well sourced. Jamez42 is clearly in abuse of Neutrality Policy of Wikipedia.

Jamez42 is pushing for Pro-opposition POV in every edit and removing all content that goes against their narrative. Many independent sources have also given the estimates as 40% so why not keep both as independent estimates. Stop using Wikipedia to spread your propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.164.216 (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

The IP edits are too old. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


The account has edited exclusively on recent Venezuelan politics articles, namely the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Crisis in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, La Piedrita, International Conference on the Situation in Venezuela and Henrique Capriles, among a few others. Besides three edits in the El Nacional (Caracas) article on 25 January, the account as edited actively only since four days ago, on 30 January. This date matches the day when the last IP has been denounced in this archive. Like previous socks, the account as pushed for a pro-government point of view, has included references as bare URLs ([176][177][178][179]), removed referenced content ([180][181][182][183]) and overall edited disruptively. Something that brought my attention is one of their edit summaries said "what the source says". This edit summary has consistently been used by previous socks and blocked IPs ([184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193], just to name some) Jamez42 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Recently, the user has been active on Venezuelan articles in a similar way as other Apollo socks. Similar edits in the past regarding the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn and such. Original Apollo and Burro have interacted with the same users on their talk pages. Multiple interactions with Apollocarmb. Also, Burro uses the infamous "what the source says" many times.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Please take a look.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out the interaction analysis between Burrobert and ApolloCarmb and their edits about the Syrian Civil War ([194][195][196][197]), mostly in the White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) article. Like previous socks, account seems to have started being more active starting from May 2018.

I would also to request a Checkuser for KingTintin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who shares edits with Burrobert in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and Jeremy Corbyn articles. KingTintin started editing on 22 January of this year, two days after 80.111.40.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked, and has previously deleted warnings in ther talk page ([198][199]). The user has placed a lot of references consisting only in bare URLs ([200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211], just to mention those regarding Venezuela), has pushed for a pro-government POV, has restored edits by Simon1811 and Burrobert and overall edited disruptively. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I can't add much to the evidence that is already available above. I have not been able to look at the timeline of interactions as I get this error message:

Traceback (most recent call last): 

 File "/data/project/sigma/cherry/cherryhtml/app.py", line 33, in inner
   return func(*a, **kw)
       .
       .
       .
 File "cymysql/err.py", line 138, in cymysql.err._check_mysql_exception (cymysql/err.c:1800)
 cymysql.err.InternalError: (1226, "User 's51469' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 10)")

I do prefer to keep my edits close to what the sources say as I presume that if I make things up or include my own research other editors would object. If there are any specific issues that arise that I can help clarify send me a message and I will respond.Burrobert (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Burrobert: You can use the Editor interaction utility tool above, comparing your interaction with other's. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if I use the tool myself the timeline function works. Did you need me to look at anything in particular? Burrobert (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Burrobert: Nah, just wanted to help you accessing it, I confused the utility tool with the timeline. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZiaLater and Jamez42: It's not enough to show that one user edited five pages in common with another editor and four pages in common with a third. This shows the number of interactions between the two of you and User:Snowded, a user I picked at random who has interacted with both Apollo and Burrobert. Over 300 pages! Surely you must all be sockpuppets! What you need to do is look at the substance of the edits of Apollo and Burrobert on those pages. I have looked at all of the edits and there is no similarity, either in the style of the edits or the content being edited, between the two. I have seen far too many instances of "This user is editing Venezuela topics and he disagrees with me, so he's obviously a sock of Apollo." In most cases the user in question is an IP and gets blocked for disruption, so the illusion that he is a sock is maintained. And if saying "what the source says" in an edit summary is proof that you're a blocked editor, then we may as well get rid of WP:V altogether! Try looking at some other SPIs. The evidence is presented in the form of "A changed x to y here and B changed x to y here; A said such-and-such on this talk page and B said the same thing on the same (or another) talk page." It doesn't bother me in the least if Apollo is unfairly accused of sockpuppetry. What bothers me is that this constant use of SPI to try to get rid of someone who is annoying you brings the whole process into disrepute. Scolaire (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the issues @Scolaire: and taking the time to look at the edits.Burrobert (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

KingTintin is Red X Unrelated. However, the account is  Confirmed to MroWikipedian (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked and tagged the two confirmed accounts. There is insufficient evidence to take any action with respect to Burrobert.  Clerk assistance requested: Please create a new case for the two confirmed accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


SPA account that has started editing about Venezuelan modern politics topics only about two days ago, being most active since yesteday. Perhaps the only exceptions are the Abby Martin and the StopFake articles, where they have removed sourced content and engaged in weasel wording (1, 2, 3), likely following ZiaLater's edits, an user that previous socks have had encounters before. In the account's brief edit history, they have already been warned repeatedly against disruptive editing and edit warring (1, 2, 3, 4). Also despite their brief edit history, the user seems to be knowledgeable of WP:BRD, argument that has been repeatedly used by previous socks to revert and edit disruptively. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Besides the disruptive behaviour explained previously, the account has pushed for a pro-Maduro and an anti-American point of view and has been uncivil (1, 2, 3, 4) and like previous socks, the account has referenced almost exclusively with bare URLS and using mostly teleSUR news (1, 2, 3, 4) Jamez42 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PD: Last time I was suggested to provide more insight in the accounts edits. The editor has changed wording per WP:SAID (1, 2, 3) and hasquoted selective statements, arguably against WP:UNDUE (1, 2, 3). Both behaviours have been seen in previous socks. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

27 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP from Ireland edits and engages in a similar behaviour as other socks in the article of Doctors' plot, an article regarding Stalinism and antisemitism, including whitewashing and weasel wording before reverting several times. I wanted to leave a notification and I'm not sure if an investigation is the best course of action, but in any case I wanted to explain my reasons. Jamez42 (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I have only edited one single article (see my contributions). How is that anything to go on? I'm can't say if I display similar qualities to "Apollo The Logician" but it doesn't make much sense to me to block me when I have only edited one single page.80.111.226.64 (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Blocked for one week. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


SPA that has been editing since 27 January about almost exclusively the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and related articles, pushing for a pro-Maduro/anti-Guaidó point of view, although the account has edited in articles about North Korea as well. Edit behavior include edit warring ([212][213][214][215][216][217]), personal attacks ([218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226]), removal of referenced content ([227][228][229][230][231]), adding unreferenced content ([232][233][234][235]), use of unreliable sources (including Twitter) ([236][237][238][239]) referencing with bare URLs ([240][241][242][243][244][245][246][247][248][249][250][251][252][253][254][255][256]) among other policy violations, including uncivlity. Comments in talk pages by the account have not tried to find a consensus, but rather have pushed for a specific POV or have attacked other editors, showing a pattern of WP:NOTHERE. I've noticed that the account has referenced less with bare URLs in Venezuela-related articles than in other articles, such as about North Korea topics, and I fear this may be in order to avoid detection. Instead, in these cases, RBL2000 has resorted to add bare URLs in talk pages with no comments, sometimes offering the only explanation in the title of the started section ([257][258][259][260][261][262][263]).

It should be noted that RBL2000 has deleted the SPA tags initially placed to their comments in the past ([264][265]) and that it has used similar insults used by similar socks in the past, such as "troll" ([266] [267]) and "stalker" ([268]).

I have refrained from filing an investigation request in the past because at first RBL2000 limited itself to edit in talk pages. However, the edits have become increasingly disruptive, taking away valuable time from editors, and it seems that in the last days RBL2000 has started bolder edits and reverts in main spaces. RBL2000 has been brought to the administrators incidents noticeboard twice (first time, second time), the last time for "Pushing for controversial with WP:OR despite the lack of sources 1", "Continuous digs at other users, reliable sources ('media') and bringing negative sentiments from other talk pages 1, 2, 3" and "Removing tags regarding their status and describing users as 'trolls' 1". The last discussion was opened on 27 February and RBL2000 stopped editing about Venezuela on the following day ([269][270]), only to start editing again two days after the closure of the report on 5 March ([271]) and continue the edit pattern five days after this date ([272]), which also suggests an attempt to game the system.

I hope that with all this information there's enough evidence to prove an edit pattern and that the account is being used abusively. Jamez42 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@MJL: Perfect, will do, many thanks for telling me! Should I notify any other involved editors? --Jamez42 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jamez42, nah, that's probably not necessary. I just figured it would be fair to let TFD in on the process since they agreed to be RH's mentor of sorts. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notified. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: *Comment: On references and due to amount of content I can't deal with entire Gish gallop in well sorted minimal way.
Reference 1-2 used as proof of edit warring is narrative not based on fact as the dispute was over user from another country not being able to access the source yet I have been able to and provided screenshot it is working. Talk:Pokpung-ho/Archives/2024/March#The link you claim dead is working.
Reference 3-6 is edit warring of Jamez42 that does not rely on english WP:RS at all and ignores fact that mainstream media and various governments that support Guaido refer to him as Interim President, including the US government. Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Media and other countries refer Guaido as Interim President, not Acting President.
Reference 7-15 which I don't deny, but Jamez42 leaves out it was resolved more or less and I am not the only editor in conflict with those two yet reference 13-15 demonstrate that these two editors dispute/distort WP:RS by claiming else from what is stated in article/statement. Neither Morocco nor Ukraine recognize Guaido as Interim President yet these two editors asserted otherwise in direct contradiction of stated in those two WP:RS. Ref 13-15Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Ukraine and Morocco, again...
Reference 16 is implementing NPOV, there was no evidence in those references except claims while now in hindsight with NYT releasing previously unseen footage that further demonstrates the lack of evidence for claim that Venezuelan border guards set on fire those aid trucks.
Reference 17, look at this: Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Ukraine and Morocco, again...
Reference 18-19 is not removal of referenced content, it is removal of unreferenced and unrelated content including involving Iran with dose of WP:OR on very article along with act of vandalism.
Reference 20 shows me removing Jericho which is an ICBM, not IRBM thus does not belong to the article and the KN-08 is untested ICBM which is considered cancelled by experts due to existence of Hwasong-12/14/15 such as Norbert Brugge, there is no mention of KN-08/Hwasong-13 for years now.
Reference 21 The "unreferenced" content in referenced if the accusser bothered to check the sources.
Reference 22 The accusser cherrypicked as I referenced it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_shipping_of_humanitarian_aid_to_Venezuela&diff=prev&oldid=887110925
Reference 23 The unreferenced is referenced by plethora of sources/references in very article from various mainstream media and countries that support Guaido refering to Guaido as Interim President of Venezuela, at least that the case in English language media and statements by governments while going from Interim to Acting will cause confusion along contradicting what WP:RS refers to Guaido. Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Media and other countries refer Guaido as Interim President, not Acting President.
Reference 24 The "unreferenced" content is referenced in very referenced article and I applied WP:NPOV as clear in comparison with previous version.
Reference 25-28 are all on talk page and not on article, issue that has been discussed.
Reference 29-45 Not sure if Wikipedia policy violation, but far lesser issue then alleged "unreferenced" content.
Reference 46-52 Yes, I placed in there as I didn't want to edit it in and then have conflict with editors which ofcourse when I did that happened. Including Jamez42. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_shipping_of_humanitarian_aid_to_Venezuela&diff=prev&oldid=887160768
Reference 53-57 Sure, that is insulting yet it isn't insulting to label someone SPA to depreaciate my opinion and condition others editors into ignoring my opinion. Double standards and hypocrisy indeed.
Reference 58(registered as 1) is false, by such standard any comment on the subject/sourcing can be labeled as WP:OR
Reference 59 is me refering to this: Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Ukraine and Morocco, again...
Reference 60 Yes, pointing out lack of NPOV how negative.
Reference 61 Yes, its me pointing out thats negative sentiment and not editor that asserts to other editor in bad faith as not being understandable despite very editor stating simply what he wants to be done as that very editor tried to reach concensus. Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#Ukraine and Morocco, again...
Reference 58-61(62-65) The accusser attempts to game the system with Gish gallop tactics. RBL2000 (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Red X Unrelated. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10 June 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Before I start explaining the rationale of the request, I want to acknowledge that the behavior of this account has been different from others of these archives. I haven't seen the disruptive editing that has characterized other accounts, and I have personally recognized their disposition to discuss controversial topics in the past. These are the reasons why my main concern is block evasion.

Cmonghost has edited almost exclusively about current Venezuelan politics articles with a pro-government POV, namely Juan Guaidó (46% of the edits), 2019 Venezuelan uprising (17% of the edits) and International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis (13% of the edits), with a total of 86% of main space edits dedicated to Venezuelan related articles. Their account was created on 18 April 2019, but started editing and being active much more on 1 May 2019, a day after the 30 April uprising/coup attempt in Caracas. Other confirmed socks, such as Simon1811 (talk · contribs) after the start of the presidential crisis on 23 January, have also edited a lot more or been more active in the past after high profile events in Venezuela. While it is true that this also applies for other users, nearly all of this accounts were created months or even years ago, besides having more diversity in their edit history.

Cmonghost also followed the discussion of a thread started by 2.28.247.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([273]), an IP that has engaged in edit warring ([274][275][276][277]), as well as being uncivil and even accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet at one point ([278]) . If I'm not mistaken, Cmonghost wasn't even autoconfirmed by then; their response took place only 34 minutes after the IP started the thread and five minutes after the last IP edits (see [279] and [280] for comparison). I should also note that the IP's location is located in Great Britain, the same geographical where Apollo has shown editing interest in the past and where several of the non-proxy denounced IPs in the archives are from.

Despite starting using said acount for less than two months, Cmonghost seems to be knowledgeable of editing, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as their acronyms ([281][282][283], just to mention a few). This is explained in their talk page, which states I've been editing Wikipedia for several years and created this account in April 2019. However, I understand if Cmonghost is a new account created by an old user and this has been disclosed to administrators. Last but not least, I would like to add that confirmed socks have used talk pages extensively in the past. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Jamez42 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Hello,

I'm not a sockpuppet, and I'm confident whoever checks this will find the same. A couple notes for the consideration of whoever checks this:

  • I live in Toronto, Canada; the last time I was in the UK was many years ago.
  • I don't know if CheckUser checks what IPs a user has browsed from, as opposed to just editing from, but I do use a VPN regularly (NordVPN), so I've often browsed Wikipedia using it, including using UK IPs (such as to get around region blocking, e.g. by the BBC). Typically if I click "edit" on a page while my VPN is on, a notice comes up saying I'm not allowed to edit using an "open proxy", so I turn it off. I may have edited from one of these proxy IPs if it wasn't blocked, but the vast majority of my edits should be from Canada (including this one).
  • I have used other accounts in the past, most of which I've long forgotten the usernames and passwords of. The most recent one, aside from this account, is the user that requested WP:PROD of the page Williams Fresh Cafe, which was a non-notable page about an Ontario restaurant chain that seemed to mainly exist for promotional reasons; but I don't remember the username and I don't know how to access the history of a deleted page to find it. Here's the deletion log: [284]
  • I have never used multiple accounts concurrently, though I may have edited from an IP previously while not logged in on mobile (where I also use NordVPN).
  • It's hard not to pick up Wikipedia jargon if you actively participate in discussions on talk pages.

Thanks for your consideration and sorry to whoever has to waste their time investigating this. Happy to answer any other questions if requested. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small clarification, if it helps. 2.28.247.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is not a proxy or VPN, unlike other IPs previously investigated. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

14 August 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The lead IP is 80.180.196.242. It's clearly Apollo The Logician per trademark combination of topics: Marxism edits[285], Venezuela edits[286] and Irish edits[287]. The WHOIS information is similar with previous 80... IPs in the archive.

After this IP, a load of different Telecom Italia IPs have been used. One of them continued straight from where the Irish IP left from, in a move request initiated by the latter. It is fairly disruptive that another IP has initiated a second move request on the same page: [288] On talk:Social democracy, one Italian IP is answering on behalf of the Irish IP in the same section etc.

New Italian IPs with a different range seem to pop after every day or two, so can you just please check what's happening in the histories of these articles:

-- Pudeo (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • I don’t understand what rules are violated from these IPs. User's edits are mostly helpful. --Гармонический Мир (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the same question. Assuming these are the same user, are they using multiple IPs to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies (WP:SOCK)? They don't appear to be doing anything malicious from the edits linked. I don't see why it's disruptive for one user to request two different moves on the same page, and the second RM even acknowledges that they are doing so: I apologise for making another request and I hope it's not a problem. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MarioGom: Thanks for the clarification. The evidence for that seems pretty thin to me. From looking at the edits, the accounts don't edit in the same style as Apollo the Logician. Marxism, Venezuela and Ireland are very broad topics and it doesn't seem remarkable that different individuals could share interests in those areas. Plus, unless I missed one, the IPs are all from Italy, based on the WHOIS information, including the one confusingly referred to as the "Irish IP". I thought Apollo was based in Ireland, not Italy. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with user Cmonghost. Such check must be justified. In this case, I see no reason to check. --Гармонический Мир (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm from Italy and the one confused as the "Irish IP" on the social democracy's talk page is still me. For what it's worth, I'm not Apollo The Logician. At first, I thought Apollo The Logician was another sockpupper of Cambridge Ottic, another user blocked for the same reason, because I have done this revert (another user already lamented that Cambridge Ottic did original research and synthesise sources and it was not just badly written but written in a way that wasn't just non-encyclopedic but uncyclopedic itself) and that was the first user I thought you were referring to, but then I saw Cambridge Ottic was the sockpuppet of another user and not related to Apollo The Logician. I don't think I have done anything wrong, but I thought that revert could have been the problem; no one reverted my revert either, so I believe it was fine. Then I also realised it couldn't have been that what you were referring to because I literally reverted his edits, but I was confused for a moment. Anyway, I don't know either of these users (I only knew about Cambridge Ottic due to that revert I have done because I believe it was the main cause of issues in the page itself) and I don't know why my IP changes. It just automatically does; sometimes it could be that when I'm having problems with my PC like freezing and I have to unplug it when I can't just turn it off, so that could cause the IP to automatically changes that it would have otherwhise, but it could be just a coincidance. I also don't believe I have done anything in bad faith; and if I did, I wholeheartely apologise for that, it wouldn't have been my intention to do so. I always try to be in good faith. I'm really enjoying my time here and I hope there won't be any problem with me.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I got the issue now. @Pudeo: thinks I'm Apollo The Logician and that I was being disruptive with my edits and discussions with the IP changes. However, as I explained above:
  • 1. I'm not Apollo The Logician.
  • 2. I can confirm it was always me in these IPs; and in all these discussions pointed out by Pudeo, it was always me. I'm from Italy and all these IPs are from Italy, so I don't understand what Pudeo was referring to with the "Irish IP".
  • 3. I didn't change my IP on purpose. I wouldn't even know how to do that and I don't plan to do so either. I actually wish I could keep the same IP so I wouldn't have any of these problems, but it simply changed automatically.
  • 4. Perhaps I should have specified it was always me in these discussions pointed out by Pudeo; and in some cases I'm pretty sure I have done exactly that. However, in other cases I thought it was either obvious it was still me (no one actually asked if it was still me or somebody else either) or I didn't realize my IP changed.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I think I did indeed mess up the WHOIS information in my head. Sorry for that. But @79.52.17.197: I actually wish I could keep the same IP how about creating an account then? --Pudeo (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

All of the IPs listed are Italian. There is no Irish IP "in the same [Talk page] section". The 80. IPs in the archive start with 80.11 and are Irish. The number of IPv4s that start with 80. is huge and do not all geolocate to the same place. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22 September 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed

 Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09 October 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account started editing in late 2018, becoming more active this year. It has edited extensively in topics about Ireland, including but not limited to the IRA and Sinn Féin. There is editing interaction between FDW777 and Apollo in articles such as the Easter Rising. This post in WP:ARE might be noteworthy. Jamez42 (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Is every editor who edits in the Troubles area a sockpuppet of Apollo The Logician? The "evidence", not that there is any, would appear to be making that suggestion. FDW777 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Hi! Many thanks for the soon response! I will provide further information and diffs in the following hours. Since it will take time, I would like to know if there is any sort of "deadline". Many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: no deadline, do not worry. Salvio 18:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will cover each bullet point in turn, mentioned individual diffs where appropriate.

  • "Reverting" bullet point. Given the number of reverts performed daily by editors too numerous to count, I fail to see how simply performing a revert is evidence of sockpuppetry.
  • "The edits have usually been charactirized for being (Irish) nationalist, pro-IRA or pro-Sinn Féin, broadly constructed" bullet point. Characterized by who and where? No evidence has been supplied to support that assertion. Breaking down the "In some cases, this has included the removal of referenced content" claim diff by diff:
  • [289] Yes, it includes a reference. But as my edit summary stated "Since the reference doesn't even mention Michelle O'Neill, I'm not convinced of the relevance to her article". Has this edit been challenged or reverted by anyone? No.
  • [290]. No "referenced content" was removed. An unreliable reference was removed, which was clearly correct. The content was left in with a citation request added.
  • [291]. As my edit summary points out, there was no agreement for that change at Talk:The Troubles/Archive 3#Adding additional supporters of the Paramilitaries when it was discussed in June 2018, therefore for the same editor to try and make the change again in May 2019 is inappropriate. And despite there being references added they are at times very problematic. For example it is claimed republican paramilitaries are supporting by a "Norwegian Criminal Gang" with this reference. However it only states that 100 rifles were stolen from a Norwegian Reserve base, and I can think of several reasonable ways that can happen without the involvement of a "Norwegian Criminal Gang"
  • [292]. This is not removing "referenced content" at all. It is reverting these changes, the only reason the body of text has any changes is due to AnomieBOT rescuing the references the IP deleted.
  • [293]. This is reverting an IP changing "Irish republican" to "Irish nationalist" in the lead of Sinn Féin. As my edit summary pointed out, they are "Predominantly Irish republican". Did anyone revert my edit or disagree with it? No, because it is virtually universally accepted the most accurate descriptor is Irish republican. The reference provided by the IP describes them as "Irish radical nationalist", which isn't really the same thing as "Irish nationalist" anyway
  • [294]. Read MOS:TERRORIST.
  • [295]. Read Talk:Gerry Adams#IRA membership section. I proposed an edit on the discussion page taking into account previous discussions. The edit I then made can be seen here. This was partially reverting by an IP here. This was made by an editor currently blocked for using IP sockpuppets, see User talk:Bardrick#October 2019 where that edit is specifically mentioned. As my edit summary when reverting the IP makes clear, the Jean McConville murder allegations haven't been removed from the article. They can still be seen at Gerry Adams#2014 arrest). The changes I made were almost two months ago, and not one single other editor has reverted me or raised any objections on the discussion page. Doesn't that tell you something?
  • [296]. You really have to be joking now don't you? What is the connection between a bombing in Crossmaglen and a funeral in Belfast? They are 50 miles apart, simply because they happened on the same day doesn't mean the funeral needs to be mentioned does it?
  • [297]. This is not a diff by me, and no corresponding diffs from my edits are mentioned. Even if they are, I refer you to WP:CLAIM regarding words such as that.
  • ("In the edits, the definition or wording of "terrorist" or "terrorism" has been changed or removed" bullet point. Yes, I edit to prevent MOS:TERRORIST being violated by a succession of IP editors. It does not logically follow that doing that makes me the same person as another editor who does the same, unless you are suggesting all the IPs adding "terrorist" are the same person as well? Am I also Jon C., who makes similar edits?
  • "Other edits have removed mention of Northern Irland, the United Kingdom or British nationality, preferring only Ireland or the Irish nationality" bullet point. As mentioned in edit summary, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Place of birth, death etc., the first sentence reads "The place of birth, residence and/or death of people who were born, lived or died before 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland should be given simply as "Ireland", and they should not be described as "Northern Irish"
  • [298]. As above.
  • [299]. As above.
  • [300]. As above.
  • [301]. As above.
  • [302]. As above.
  • [303]. Michelle O'Neill was not born in Northern Ireland.
  • [304]. As I mentioned in my previous revert of that editor, Template:Infobox person makes it clear that the nationality or citizenship field "Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace". I notice you have left out my other reverts of the same editor on articles that are absolutely nothing to do with Britain or Ireland, and show I am attempting to ensure the fields are being correctly used on all articles.
  • [305]. Dana Rosemary Scallon is an Irish citizen.
  • [306]. This is reverting an IP who made a change to Michelle O'Neill's article labelling her as British. There is quite simply, incorrect since she was not born in Northern Ireland or any other part of the UK.
  • [307]. Please tell me how you possibly think when referring to geographical locations (as this article is doing in multiple places) you think it correct to link to Londonderry (UK Parliament constituency)?
  • [308]. Please tell me why you think it correct to have a link such as [[Northern Ireland|British]]?

Perhaps most glaring in the evidence is "In these, there is a distinctive feature: little to no edits between 0:00 and 6:00 UTC", wow really? You are aware that most people in Great Britain (me) and Ireland (Apollo The Logician, judging by IPs in previous invesitgations) are asleep during those hours yes?

More to follow. FDW777 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "I've also noticed that there are plenty of edits quoting WP:DERRY, changing "London Derry" to "Derry" bullet point. Yes as WP:DERRY makes clear we use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county. Am I also Valenciano, TedEdwards or Mélencron? All of those editors have referenced WP:DERRY, and those are just the ones in the recent history of the Martin McGuinness article
  • "Despite being a new user or having no apparent experience in talk pages, FDW777 knew how to provide diffs in just their second edit" bullet point. I edited as various IPs prior to creating an account. One of them is Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:34D6:349F:F6D0:68A3, who started a discussion on Talk:Airey Neave that I refer back to with my account here. Another IP I have used is Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:D802:80A1:3B7D:C884.
  • "I should also mention similarities in the accounts' time cards" bullet point is mentioned above. Not editing during the hours when most people in Western Europe are sleeping is hardly a rare trait.
  • "I also find interesting that FDW777 mentioned communism (or socialism)". "Reds under the bed" is an exaggerated or obsessive fear of the presence and harmful influence of communist sympathisers. I could have said "republicans under the bed" but people might not have understood the reference, namely your exaggerated or obsessive fear that every editor in the Troubles area is a sockpuppet of Apollo The Logician.

I have nothing to hide from checkuser. In fact, I will tell you what they won't due to the privacy policy. I am resident in the United Kingdom (a particular part of England if you really want to know), using Sky Broadband. Not a VPN, not a proxy, but a major internet provider. I am not in the same country as Apollo The Logician. Any similarities in editing have been explained above. That I revert multiple IPs adding "terrorist" to articles or changing Derry to Londonderry doesn't make me the same person as Apollo The Logician, any more than in makes me the same person as the other editors making similar reverts. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FDW777: You don't have to justify the reason of why the edits were carried out, or if they follow policies or guidelines. Like I mentioned earlier, this request is only about edit behaviour similarities. In most of the points above, if not all, you have not disputed that there are similarities between Apollo and your account. I have pointed out not only a single feature that users such as Valenciano, TedEdwards or Mélencron share, but several others. I do not argue that these edits have not been done in good faith. If you wish, you can read the Guidance section about "Defending yourself against claims". Best wishes, --Jamez42 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valenciano has other similarities. While they still use WP:TERRORIST this was due to a redirect being changed. In fact the changes are evident from my edits, for example a use of WP:TERRORIST here was immediately corrected 2 minutes later here to refer to MOS:TERRORIST. Simiarly Jon C. makes the same change reverting IPs back to Derry and similar edits many times. The evidence you cite is common behaviour on Troubles related articles, and is of little use to say two editors are the same person. Similarly that I have "little to no edits between 0:00 and 6:00 UTC" is of no real significance, since that is a time when the majority of the people in the UK and Ireland are sleeping. FDW777 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Am I also Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs)? They remove incorrect uses of Northern Ireland for times before it existed, and revert mentioning WP:TERRORIST, and revert mentioning WP:DERRY. I am not the only editor in the Troubles area to have more than one of these traits am I? FDW777 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also I will address the "Like in previous cases, I've found edit summaries similar to "what the source says" bullet point. I have had a look in the archive for that specific phrase, and this salient point by @Scolaire: leaps out - "And if saying "what the source says" in an edit summary is proof that you're a blocked editor, then we may as well get rid of WP:V altogether". When you are changing text in an article to match what the source says (oops, look what I just said) there really aren't that many ways to phrase the edit summary that don't involve using some of those words in that order (or similar ones such as "reference", which I used it two of the three diffs provided). FDW777 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case my post regarding my ISP is unclear, I give full permission for a checkuser to confirm the information given by me regarding my location and ISP is correct. FDW777 (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further information
[edit]

@Salvio giuliano: I've managed to gather several diffs. I apologize if I took too long.

(FDW777: [338][339][340][341][342][343][344][345][346][347][348]
Apollo The Logician: [349][350][351][352][353][354][355][356][357][358][359][360][361][362])
  • Like in previous cases, I've found edit summaries similar to "what the source says"
(FDW777: [363][364][365]
Confirmed or suspected sockpuppets: [366][367][368][369][370][371][372][373][374][375][376])
(FDW777: [408][409][410][411][412]
ApolloCarmb: [413][414][415])
  • Sarcastic, ironic or scathing edit summaries
("yawn", "Reds under the bed", "boring")

Despite being a new user or having no apparent experience in talk pages, FDW777 knew how to provide diffs in just their second edit ([416]), as well as quoting MOS:WORDS in just their third edit (WP:TERRORIST) and MOS:IRELAND in their fourth (WP:DERRY), suggesting experience outside the said account.

I should also mention similarities in the accounts' time cards Apollo The Logician's, which is most noticeable comparing FDW777's and ApolloCarmb's. In these, there is a distinctive feature: little to no edits between 0:00 and 6:00 UTC.

I also find interesting that FDW777 mentioned communism (or socialism) when I notified them of the sockpuppet investigation and while blanking their talk page ("Reds under the bed"), which is another frequent topic of confirmed or suspected sockpuppets, even though I haven't even brought it until now.

Last but not least, I want to stress that I am not necesarrily pointing out necessarily at policy or guidelines violations, but edit behaviour similarities and potential block evasion, which is particularly important since the Troubles is a topic subject to active arbitration remedies. I hope all of this helps to clarify my grounds for requesting a checkuser. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Additional information needed -  Check declined by a checkuser. 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. Salvio 16:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the account and the results are  Inconclusive, I'm sorry. Salvio 22:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12 October 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Goodposts edited first on 12 January 2019 on the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis article, less than 24 hours after the article was created, during the important controversy that is currently ongoing in the country and two weeks before confirmed sock Simon1811 started editing on 25 January ([417]). Their first edit was directly a revert ([418]), already writing "NPOV" as an edit summary, suggesting a single purpose and previous knowledge of Wikipedia policies outside the account. Goodposts continued editing in the article after Simon1811 was blocked on 2 February 2019 (Editor interaction analysis as reference) Ever since, Goodposts has edited in articles about other countries in the region, such as Cuba ([419][420][421][422][423][424]) and Nicaragua ([425]), usually writing about the governments alligned with Venezuela's administration in a positive light, including Maduro's, with currently the exception of Ecuador ([426][427][428], whose government is opposed to the Nicolás Maduro administration. There are also similarities in sourcing, including references like Venezuelanalysis and Twitter ([429][430]). I think Telesur has also been included, but I can't find the diff at the moment. The edits in the Iran–United Kingdom relations article may also be noteworthy ([431][432][433]). Once again, I have to point out again the similarities between Apollo The Logician's and Goodposts' time cards: little to no edits between 0:00 and 6:00 UTC. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

An absurd accusation that quite frankly made me laugh. The vast majority of my writing regards the middle east, with most of it focusing on Syria. Yes, I've countered many claims that I feel were pushing a POV. Just yesterday I read in an article that a certain former latin american leader was a "pupper master president". I'm sorry, but If I see that, you bet I'll be correcting it. I've written things that appear 'negatively' on a side only if that is something that is the way in which most sources describe it. For example, that protest you mentioned - yes, I removed the POV bit against the former president, but in the same breath I also referred to the radicalism and even violence that some of the protesters demonstrated. I also didn't know that Twitter was a pro-Maduro source. I guess when you think about it, twitter's icon is a bird and Maduro once said that he thought a bird represented the late Hugo Chavez. Twitter is run by Chavez confirmed. I guess that ought to be a lesson learned. With joking aside and in all seriousness - the twitter sources I've used were primarily on articles relating to the war in Syria, where they are incredibly commonly found, due to the fact that few agencies publish small bits of news in entire articles. I edit them out later once agencies summarise the content I was originally citing, which is routine for editors covering that perticular war. What my Iran reference had to do with anything, I have no idea. If you're wondering why I don't edit between midnight and dawn, it's probably because I'm sleeping (not with Maduro, I swear!!).
I'll leave the rest to the administrators. I had a good chuckle at this. Have a nice day. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Red X Unrelated, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This is being split off from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sq178pv per request by Berean Hunter. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

29 October 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Considerable overlap between confirmed sockpuppets and 'SpaceSandwich'. The account was created in April 2020, and edits in the same way as the sockmaster and puppets: tendentious editing on content related to extreme leftwing politics. I noticed who it was when the editor made the same edits to the page as the sockpuppet Jorge1777[434][435][436]. The editor is also edit-warring on the page of an obscure pseudohistorian[437][438]. See overlap here also[439]. I think there is enough to warrant a check. The sockmaster is engaging in long-term abuse, so I'm reluctant putting more time and effort into this when multiple new accounts will eventually crop up as soon as this one gets blocked. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I am not using "sockpuppet" accounts, stop trying to censor the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceSandwich (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned with my edits, I shall stop editing the Grover Furr page. - SpaceSandwich — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceSandwich (talk • contribs) 02:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

SpaceSandwich appears to me to be related to other socks such as Jorge1777, having the same style and topic interests. The case is also very similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist/Archive such that all three cases might be the same sockmaster. The range Special:Contributions/31.187.0.0/21 and the IP Special:Contributions/80.111.17.237 appear to be connected, geolocating to Leinster, Ireland. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist/Archive#04 July 2017. It's a long and involved discussion but the bottom line is that Apollo was unlikely to be a sock of LP because he was in a prolonged conflict with an editor who was considered to be a sock of LP. I just thought it was worth noting. Scolaire (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SpaceSdandwich said here that they were a "high school" teacher. Binksternet mentioned two IP ranges that geolocate to Ireland. I would expect somebody in Ireland to use the term "secondary school", not "high school". I may be grasping at straws here, but that leads me to suspect Space is not related to those IP ranges. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - there's overlap here (interest in physics, interest in Communism, the obscure fringe theorist mentioned by the filer). I don't see any non-stale socks, but since Apollo has a long record here at SPI I'm hoping cuwiki or the CU logs might have some input. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser Nothing on CUwiki, and the archive is very much a mess to connect anything together. Beyond that, looking at what I could through logs in archive, I see three different countries involved, suggesting proxy use which will only dilute the result more. A CU also confirmed proxy use in the archive. Beyond that, the one consistent IP I see in the checks ran has been hardblocked since the spring and has had multiple reblocks by CheckUsers who would have run the checks at the time. With those factors and missing UAs, this is not a check I am willing to run. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I'm not sufficiently confident in the relationship between these accounts to block, and the lack of CU data means that I'm stuck. It's possible that they're related, I'm just not sure. Closing without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03 February 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


If you look at his contribs you see that he has interest in leftist topics, just like some other socks. Also, this account has been known to use personal attacks at people and make disruptive edits. Darubrub (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • See the last case in the archive. There aren't any non-stale socks to compare to, and it looks like CU wouldn't be much help anyway. The sock is already blocked anyway. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11 February 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same (far-)left POV and exclusive focus on authoritarian left-wing regimes, the IRA and other "Tankie" topics. I'm comparing to Jorge1777 because that one is a recently active sock with a good number of edits.

  • Good amount of overlap:[440], and some more with suspected sock SpaceSandwich.
  • Note the sequential editing here.
  • "Per source" in edit summaries
  • Adressing others as "My friend"
  • Invoking and wikilinking BRD in edit summaries:
diff fixed per comment below. Blablubbs|talk 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will add more as soon as I have time, but just noting that both Lori Mattix and Hu Xijin, on which Jorge and PailSimon overlap are fairly low-edit count articles. Note the insertion of language that casts doubt on Mattix' assertions here vs here. Blablubbs|talk 02:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As another addendum, yeah, "IRA" was the wrong word there – "Ireland-related" would have been more fitting. Blablubbs|talk 02:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, since people have indirectly asked for more evidence:
I don't think it's all that productive to discuss what the most apt description of the POV that's being advanced (or the topic complex that's being edited) is – it's certainly similar. Blablubbs|talk 09:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  •  Comment: If it helps, I'll add and remind that one of the confirmed sockpuppets was Simon1811. With ApolloCarmb, there's already the precedent of having similar usernames, regardless of the obviousness. Both accounts also start edit summaries in low caps, something also common in previous sockpuppets. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Far-left POV" I would be interested to see some evidence for this.
  2. "exclusive focus on authoritarian left-wing regimes, the IRA and other "Tankie" topics." This is demonstrably false that I have an "exclusive focus" on far left authoritarian regimes, I have edited international politics articles and so inevitably edited left-wing authoritarian regime articles as a result of this but to say I have an "exclusive focus" can be debunked by trawling through my user contributions. To add to this I believe I have made one single edit to an IRA article so I have no idea how this can be construed as a "focus".
  3. "Good amount of overlap" I am not sure how a handful of articles can be considered "good amount of overlap".
  4. ""Per source" in edit summaries" The phrase "per source" is hardly some unique mannerism. Its a fairly standard and rudimentary phrase.
  5. "Adressing others as "My friend"" The Jorge edit you provided is actually an edit of mine so I think you made a mistake here. Edit I now see that he has corrected the mistake. I feel like a lot of this report is "These two editors have some similar mannerisms that are fairly common mannerisms so they must be the same".
  6. "Invoking and wikilinking BRD in edit summaries:" Well again, as I said above in response to the "per source" observation, linking and quoting BRD is hardly a unique practice, in fact it is fairly widespread from what I can gather.
  7. To respond to @NoonIcarus:: My name is play on the musician Paul Simon and starting edit summaries with low caps is not a particularly unique mannerism.PailSimon (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I may PailSimon the similarity is not that both accounts use BRD its that both accounts misuse BRD in the same way. Both you and the linked sock use BRD to justify edit warring instead of actually following BRD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the report is saying, that's your personal interpretation and an amusing one at that. Your inability to understand BRD is well established through your own block log history.PailSimon (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was once briefly blocked for feuding with a user who turned out to be a sock, what about that is BRD related? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also a BRD related block isn't possible, its a purely optional procedure. But please continue to tell us how both you and the sock apparently have the exact same obscure mistaken understanding about what BRD is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a two week block in fact. It was for edit warring/feuding (the latter especially demonstrates your lack of credibility on this matter given your tendency to create a personal nemesis for yourself of which I have recently fallen victim to). You can keep mindlessly repeating that I do not understand BRD but until you substantiate that claim it means nothing.PailSimon (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is not among the words used by the admin. Let me be clear: You can't revert someone who reverts you and say “stick to BRD” its simply illogical both because following BRD isn’t required and because BRD is already impossible at that point by definition. This is not a common misunderstanding, yet its one that both you and that confirmed sock have made over and over again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you fail to understand is that BRD encourages you (the edit warrior) to discuss instead of reverting. Thats the whole point of mentioning it. There's of course the relevant section which states "Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block." Its not at all erroneous to point this quote out to the offender (you).PailSimon (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not in any of the diffs presented so far. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know but it applies to you as well as to the users in the presented diffs.PailSimon (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get it now, everyone is edit warring but you. See you later alligator! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well now you're putting words in my mouth.PailSimon (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As another addendum, yeah, "IRA" was the wrong word there – "Ireland-related" would have been more fitting" - I believe I have edited about three Ireland articles (hardly a focus) which is to be expected as I edit international articles. I have edited articles on many countries ranging from the UK to China to America to Russia and beyond. PailSimon (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of these "similarities" are just incredible reaches. I have used the phrase "gain a consensus" and so has the other individual? Really? Things like this show that the filer is so desperate for evidence that they have to reach to such extreme lengths for "evidence". Perhaps a "Check User" would clear my name? PailSimon (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser can't provide exculpatory evidence and has proven ineffective in recent filings of this case because the master is on proxies. The standard here isn't "is called something like "Apollo The Logician returns and makes the exact same edits", the standard is "are these two users similar enough to make it highly unlikely that they are distinct individuals". Luckily for the both of us, I don't have to convince you, I have to convince clerks and patrolling admins. By the way, leaving aggressive comments at SPI that say stuff about editing habits being common and/or the evidence sucking and/or the filer being an idiot who's out to get you also vaguely reminds me of something. [461][462][463][464][465][466][467][468] Blablubbs|talk 10:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well If a 'Check User' is carried out you shall find that I do not in fact use proxy IP addresses. The fact that I'm not usigg them would be further evidence that I am not said individual.
  2. "By the way, leaving aggressive comments at SPI that say stuff about editing habits being common and/or the evidence sucking and/or the filer being an idiot who's out to get you also vaguely reminds me of something." I don't know what I have said that could be considered "aggressive" but if I have come off that way it is unintentional. I have never called you an idiot and I have never said that you're "out to get me" so I have no idea where you're drawing these bizarre conclusions from.
  3. "Say stuff about editing habits being common and/or the evidence sucking" I mean what am I supposed to do here? Not defend myself? Yes an editor accused of sock puppetry is going to critique your claim that we have uniquely similar editing patterns. I don't understand what you're trying to say here or expecting of me. PailSimon (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"with both having a liking for Talk: Fine Gael." - I believe I have engaged in one single talk page discussion on said page, this hardly amounts to a "liking". Once again I would stress that I edit international politics articles, I have edited political articles related to every continent in the world. The fact that I have very tangentially edited an Irish political article is a natural consequence of that. Just as the fact that I have edited Ugandan political articles, Hong Kong political articles, Thai political articles, Myanmar political articles, Iraqi political articles (and so on goes the list) is also a natural consequence of that. PailSimon (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NoonIcarus has themselves removed talk page messages 1 2, as has Horse Eye's Back 1 2. Hell even the original filer has 1 2 so I don't see this as having any weight here. PailSimon (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus: is that an outing attempt I see in that second to last diff? That looks to be rather serious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: How come? The section about the journalist? --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep thats the one, [475][476]. You can’t out non-obvious accounts like that, and its not even clear they’re right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. If needed, an oversight could remove said diffs. In any case, the diffs also show a history of edit warring that should be considered. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edits in question were made a mere month after I created my account. Is it any suprise that I would make mistakes after just a month of having an account?PailSimon (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am convinced. Not only that thing with "a", but the content of specific edits and the manner of making highly questionable and contentious changes, while also following other contributors, indicate this is probably the same person. Also, there is a subject overlap. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to accuse me of making contentious and questionable edits along with following other contributers then you'll need evidence. Ironically it's actually you who has been following me around, as evidenced by your sudden appearance here. PailSimon (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this is not you, you have nothing to worry about. My very best wishes (talk)
So no evidence then? Gotcha.PailSimon (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding to all the similarities and patterns pointed out, PailSimon has also expressed support in changing Spanish nationalities: [477][478] specifically citing the UK where citizens are called Welsh, Scottish etc as an example. Regionalism and nationalities have also been consistent issues dealt with socks in the past: [479][480][481][482].
 Looks like a duck to me. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Virtually every individual on that talk page has expressed support for the nationality change. I suppose they are all my socks as well?
  2. ""Regionalism and nationalities have also been consistent issues dealt with socks in the past:" Well that's interesting given that I have not even touched that area until that one edit today about a very high-profile individual who has recently been all over the news. Seems like this is a dissimilarity and not a similarity. This is really becoming ever more tedious. It is clear the evidence is based on spurious and vague so-called similarities (hence why this investigation has gone dry). Can a user either close down this circus or just block me already?PailSimon (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its been four days since anybody has commented so is some sort of judgement going to be made or is the lack of judgement implying that the 'evidence' has been judged as weak?PailSimon (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

26 July 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


A checkuser request was requested before against Burrobert in 2019, which was denied due to insufficient evidence. Hopefully the following request will offer more insight into the similarities between Burrobert and Apollo, as well as other confirmed socks.

Burrobert's first edit took place on 2 May 2015. Prior to 19 May 2018, Burrobert had only made 21 edits, and after that date, started editing more actively and frequently, nine days after ApolloCarmb (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)'s block on 10 May, as well as few days after the blocks of other related IPs and open proxies. Between 2015 and 2018, in three years, merely 21 edits were done, in comparison to over 4500 edits between 2018 and 2021, in the same period of time.

It should also be mentioned that during this first period of time, the articles edited were almost exclusively about British and Australian topics: Scobie Malone (film), Honor Blackman, Samantha Stosur, Altona, Victoria, Dane Swan, Gary Lineker, Alex Salmond, Show Me the Way (Peter Frampton song), George Blake, George Galloway, Altona North, Victoria. Likewise noteworthy are two articles about mathematics: Schnirelmann density, Binary quadratic form

These early edits, like ApolloCarmb's and other socks, where largely mobile ([484][485][486][487][488][489][490][491]), and Burrobert's use of British spelling ("encyclopaedia", "criticised" and "practised", to mention some) should also be noted. There have also been many instances where Burrobert has included "what the source says" in their edit summaries or a variant of it, a common summary used by previous socks ([492][493][494][495][496][497])

Since then, Burrobert has had an overlap and edited in topics ranging from Cuba (Fidel Castro, United States embargo against Cuba, Miguel Díaz-Canel), Venezuela (Nicolás Maduro, Crisis in Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan presidential crisis, Operation Gideon (2020)), Syria (White Helmets (Syrian civil war), Piers Robinson, Maram Susli), British politics, namely the Labour party (Labour Party (UK), Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn, Conservative Party (UK), Jeremy Corbyn, Gerry Adams, Clement Attlee, Chris Williamson (politician), Alex Salmond), the Soviet Union or Russia (Gulag, Walter Duranty, Unit 29155), to overall the autocratic left and mathematics, including the Uyghur genocide, and the Bertrand Russell and Bertrand Russell's political views articles, nearly always with an Anti-American/Anti-Western or pro-left wing POV. All of the named articles have an overlap with at least one confirmed sock, and as such the topic overlap is not limited to them: as recently as 18 July, Burrobert has edited in the Mick Wallace and Clare Daly articles, both Irish politicians and Members of the European Parliament, as well as The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL, the far-left political group of the body. Said overlap is also not always limited to a single account: in the case of the White Helmets articles, at least three other confirmed socks have edited in it ([498] Valkyrie Cain (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), ApolloCarmb, [499][500] Shinnerfeiner (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)).

While some articles are high profile, others such as Shaoquett Moselmane, Bertrand Russell's political views (a page moved by Apollo and where both him and related proxies have edited in) and Piers Robinson are not so much. The few amount of edits among some of the socks, as well as the amount of socks where there is overlap, should also be taken into account.

Regardless, besides the shared edits in articles or topic themselves, I'll also show some of the content similarities:

ApolloCarmb (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
EduardoJanuary (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Simon1811 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
PailSimon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jorge1777 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Burrobert
[edit]

I haven’t looked through all the examples provided above. I presume they show that I have an interest in subjects in common with a number of other editors, including the editor who raised the issue. If my editing style is similar to that of other editors it may show that we are all trying to keep to the same community rules and possibly all look at the subjects from the same angle. The articles that I have spent most time on are as follows (it might be worth seeing if any of the other editors mentioned have also edited these articles):

  • John Pilger (7.5% of content)
  • Media Lens (19.6% of content)
  • Wilfred Burchett (46.4% of content)
  • Steven Donziger (my first and only successful GA nomination) (37.9% of content)
  • Julian Assange (15.1% of content)

Other points:

  • "Forgetting to sign comments, a month after ApolloCarmb". Probably a month after a lot of editors forgot to sign. Possibly even a day after some editors forgot to sign.
  • "Jimmy Dore: Removal of critical content sources of the Young Turks' YouTube channel ([39][40]). Apollo The Logician has done this as well in the past”. In 2017, Apollo removed the ungrammatical sentences “Jimmy Dore appears on The Young Turks(TYT), where he insights violence towards police officers. Inspiring TYT fan Gavin Long to shoot 3 police officers". These were based on a YouTube video. In 2021, I removed the sentences “In 2014, Dore expressed doubt in the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks, saying "I don't know what happened. I know what didn't happen. What didn't happen is what the government said happened."" These were also based on a YouTube video, which in this case was no longer available. While the text removed by Apollo is critical of Dore, the text removed by me is an exposition of his views and not critical.
  • "There have also been many instances where Burrobert has included "what the source says" in their edit summaries or a variant of it, a common summary used by previous socks". And by many other editors. Limiting ourselves to what the source says and not introducing editorial commentary are very important editing principles within Wikipedia. I said the following in my previous sockpuppet investigation: "I do prefer to keep my edits close to what the sources say as I presume that if I make things up or include my own research other editors would object".

Burrobert (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • No blocks, I'm afraid. I see a shared interest in some historical topics and concede that there's a good amount of overlap, but not enough to take action. All known socks are  Stale and the archives indicate that cuwiki and the CU logs don't have much of use here. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Apollo_The_Logician/Archive&oldid=1214496088"