Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter/Archive: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 775: Line 775:
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
*The named account has now been CU-blocked, and the IP has made only one edit yesterday. Closing with no further action, although a clerk may wish to tag the named account. If the IP resumes editing, the case may be re-opened, but without a request for CU. [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
*The named account has now been CU-blocked, and the IP has made only one edit yesterday. Closing with no further action, although a clerk may wish to tag the named account. If the IP resumes editing, the case may be re-opened, but without a request for CU. [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->
===21 March 2023===

====Suspected sockpuppets====
{{sock list|1=66.44.115.210|tools_link=yes}}<!-- Add more accounts or IPs to this template as needed -->

The same style of edits made by Hoaeter and their alt accounts. Please see the latest edit history at [[Chi Alpha]], [[Bapticostal movement]], and [[Calvary Chapel Association]] for instance. [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 03:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

====<big>Comments by other users</big>====
:<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small>

That IP address has appeared frequently in the previous Hoaeter investigations. It's already been blocked 3 times, the last of which (by {{U|Drmies}}) recently expired and they're already showing up again in the usual places. I'm blocking for another 6 months. The CU request is still open; nothing for CU to do where an IP address is concerned but perhaps they will want to look for sleepers? -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 20:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
*[[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog]], found nothing, but God this is tedious. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
:* (sorry) -- [[User:Gyrofrog|Gyrofrog]] [[User_talk:Gyrofrog|(talk)]] 03:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
*IP already blocked, nothing more to do here. Closing. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 09:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 00:01, 27 March 2023


Hoaeter

24 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Contribs: Massive screeds making same political points in general regarding the Abyssinian people page. More to the point, "I had contacted them in a civil and polite manner to inform them of their mistake but they blocked me from ever editing on Wikipedia ever again", which seems timely to apply to both Hoeter and the original Hoeter. ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Restoring comments for another Hoaeter sock, going out of their way to build upon the other sock's comments on an IP talk page. Already blocked, last CU found a bunch more socks. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@Ivanvector: Are you requesting a CU because you think you're WP:INVOLVED? You're not. Even your revert of the sock doesn't make you involved, in my view. Of course, if you don't find my view persuasive ... --Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: did you confuse me with Ian.thomson? I appreciate the advice regardless, but I don't think I know anything about this case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Embarrassed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

I suspect that HoAHabesha is a sockpuppet of Hoaeter and, as such, is evading the latter's block. More evident (to me) is that they've both edited from the same IP address. Some of this goes back a while (2018), perhaps too old for Checkusers' tools, but I only noticed it in the course of filing WP:NPOVN#Long-term issues at Habesha peoples (after first raising those issues at Talk:Habesha peoples).

Hoaeter and Hoaeter1 had already been blocked (see previous SPI), but 192.5.215.225 and HoAHabesha (heretofore unidentified) made the same edits around that same time:

I figure it's also worth pointing out the partial overlap in usernames between Hoaeter/Hoaeter1 and HoAHabesha.

There's more overlap between HoAHabesha and 192.5.215.225: compare this IP edit with HoAHabesha's edits, here and here.

More recently, 2601:14D:8581:2C70:5DE8:8908:7677:EAF7 and 2601:14D:8581:2C70:8F8:BFA9:5187:A605's edits show up in close proximity to those of HoAHabesha. I suspect that it's a case of editing while logged out, rather than evading detection. 2601:14D:8581:2C70:5DE8:8908:7677:EAF7 and HoAHabesha both show edits adding large amounts of content at once to Template:Habesha peoples (compare IP edit 17:10, 2 April 2020 and HoAHabesha's edit 20:51, 15 March 2020). The overlap with the latter IP is more clear (compare IP's edits 23:23, 22 March 2020, 15:29, 23 March 2020 with HoAHabesha's 17:31, 23 March 2020).

I am less sure about Llakew18, but the behavioral pattern of adding content with a citation that doesn't really corroborate it (for example) is similar to that of HoAHabesha, and toward the same editorial ends. I suspect WP:MEAT is more likely. Gyrofrog (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it is not too late (or the activity in question too old) do do anything about it, I've just added 129.174.182.16 given most of their edits overlap the same articles and templates. I'll go ahead and tag that user talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

How Am I A SocPuppet ?

I literally see multiple re-occurring editors that state similar points with each other all over pages that I have edited. I even sometimes click on the contributions link and put in the editors' user names or IP addresses to look for other similar pages that the editors have edited that I am interested in to edit. I do this all the time looking for things I want to edit. Along the way, I see multiple re-occurring editors that each time, I notice the same admins, the same admins I even recognize you User talk:Gyrofrog a lot over here to as well. When I see a sentence made by another editor that sounds weird, I rearrange or paraphrase it so it can sound better, that might also be why you think that I might have been a Sockpuppet. I like to edit certain topics that I know about and I click on the previous contributions of other editors to find other pages that are interesting to edit, so can you just remove this SocPuppet accusation, and can I just get back to editing without this looming over my head? Llakew18 (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might've simply thought that you and HoAHabesha happened to edit in the same topic areas. But then you made this claim which is simply not true. (I've still got the source pulled up on my screen.) It just seemed like another effort to fit a source in with the text no matter what it says. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just said “When I see a sentence made by another editor that sounds weird, I rearrange or paraphrase it so it can sound better” that also includes finding sources that corroborate what other editors put down, isn’t that what the Wikipedia:Verifiability template is about. Plus for all I know, we probably come from the same cultural background and follow similar social media accounts, locally specific cultural commonalities, that influence the way we speak about Habesha culture. This is just a guess. Literally my generation of Habesha young people follow similar social media accounts and share similar cultural tendencies. That doesn’t mean two or more people who outline similar points shared by a community but not taken into account by academia are Sockpuppets of each other. Llakew18 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2020 (

Sorry, my bad on the Makki Source , I completely mixed up the Makki source. I was trying to cite another source about Habesha identity among Ethio-Eritrean Canadians and Americans, I was trying to cite a different source and I couldn’t revert the page because there were edits by others made between these so I copied and pasted sections from a previous version of the article so I won’t have to retype the the in-line citations and the brackets. Instead, I made the mistake of reintroducing the controversial sources by accident. I’m just now realizing this after I looked into the source for the key terms, so I can show you. Llakew18 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Llakew18 is the oldest of the two accounts. They are  Confirmed. Obviously the earlier socks are too stale to be sure using CU, but  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me seems appropriate here given the evidence above. My only comment on the IPs is that they haven't edited in a while and so in any case blocking them would be pointless. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)  Blocked but awaiting tags, could a clerk please tag these appropriately? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I can add without revealing CU data that the edits at George Mason University show a clear connection with the university. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

28 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Looking back through the edit history of Habesha peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I suspect that the long-term editing pattern there (see WP:NPOVN discussion) goes back to 2017, in which case Habesha Union – not Hoaeter – is the oldest of these accounts. There's no previous SPI case under that name, and I'm not sure whether we'd want to move this case under that name (or if that's normally done). Mainly I'm not sure to tag these newly-identified accounts as socks of Hoaeter, or vice-versa.

Heretofore I'd thought that "Habesha Union" was some website or person that Hoaeter, etc. were referencing, e.g. as long ago as 21:27, 1 October 2018‎. But now I see that in 2017, there was an actual user account named Habesha Union, blocked for WP:ISU. Their edits began the pattern of documenting a modern usage of "Habesha": 06:41, 3 July 2017‎, 18:56, 3 July 2017‎. Habesha union1 was subsequently blocked as a sock. HabeshaCulture showed up in February 2018, again attesting to the modern usage of "Habesha" (for example 16:28, 19 February 2018). Since then the subsequent accounts – Hoaeter, Hoaeter1, HoAHabesha, Llakew18 etc. – have all sought to push the same content or themes that Habesha Union first posted (as far as I can tell) in 2017. As detailed in the last SPI request (17 April 2020), Hoaeter linked to a blog post credited to "Habesha Union" 1 October 2018‎ . In February 2020 HoAHabesha uploaded File:The_Habesha_Flag.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Commons, evidently sourced from Habesha Union's account at medium.com ([1]).

Since yesterday 192.252.213.194 and 68.33.77.209 appeared; I blocked (only) the former after seeing them add inline citations to someone else's comment in a WP:TFD discussion: 02:45, 28 April 2020. The latter IP had cited a couple of these in Habesha people a few hours earlier: 00:28, 28 April 2020. I know the named accounts are way too old for Checkuser, and specific comments on the IPs won't be forthcoming, but I'm listing those for CU's reference (vis-à-vis the accounts from the 17 April report) and maybe they can see if anything else is in the drawer. Gyrofrog (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • 192.252.213.194 is an open proxy in a webhosting space, and will be blocked. There is no data available on the named accounts. Thanks for the report, it will be archived, but there's nothing to do here right now without an active account. ST47 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had dug back further before I opened this report: Now I am wondering if this behavior, at least as meatpuppetry, goes all the way back to EthiopianHabesha, who was topic-banned in Feb. 2017 from editing any Horn of Africa-related articles (and compare that user name with the new account). The Habesha Union account was created ca. 5 months after the topic ban. I think it is more likely that Habesha Union is the same individual as subsequent accounts, but EthiopianHabesha argued in favor of the same content, for example at Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2016/September#Various formations of the term 'Habesha' usage by various group of people. For a more specific comparison, EthiopianHabesha's edit on their talk page, 15:32, 22 April 2016, mentions the generational viewpoints that became part of the long-term editing patterns at Habesha peoples.
(Two things: (1) I wasn't sure if I was supposed to add EthiopianEritrean and EthiopianHabesha to the account list in the "Suspected sockpuppets" section; and (2) again, is it typical to move an SPI page to an older account name, once discovered?)
(I don't suppose this is the venue to bring it up again, but I'll mention it anyway: the events leading up to and including EthiopianHabesha's topic ban discussion exasperated everyone who had tried to assist, and most if not all of the accounts involved in the dispute(s) leading up to it have been blocked and/or banned. One of the suggestions that came out of that was to add the entire topic area to WP:ACDS.)
-- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06 June 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

I've already blocked HornAfricans, but wanted to check for any overlap (e.g. sleeper accounts). HornAfricans has resumed the long-term (and still unresolved) PoV-pushing that I've described at WP:NPOVN (Apr-May 2020) and in the previous SPI cases. This time, they were very rapidly adding dozens of ethnic group articles or categories into Category:Habesha peoples -- apparently, an attempt to place any and all of the ethnicities in the Horn of Africa (e.g. Category:Somali clans in Ethiopia, 22:24, 5 June 2020) into that category. Following the expiry of page protection at Habesha peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), HornAfricans resumed the pattern of misattributing a sentence with an already cited source (22:20, 5 June 2020). Username continues a pattern of widely-encompassing usernames e.g. HornAfricanHistory (talk · contribs), OromoHabesha (talk · contribs), EthiopianEritrean (talk · contribs) etc.

Also, as I'd mentioned in the previous SPI case, I strongly suspect that Habesha Union (talk · contribs) is the actual master account (or, possibly, EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs)). Gyrofrog (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The following accounts are confirmed to each other (some of the accounts have already been listed):

HornAfricans is very likely. There's insufficient CU data to technically link an older master, but the link to Hoaeter is fairly strong. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWatchdog2 has basically admitted to repeated sockpuppetry, for what it's worth ("who do sock puppetry as the only way to defend themselves inside wikipedia"). I'm not going to link to the specific edit, because it was abusive (and hidden as such). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added Eritrea123123 (talk · contribs); I've already blocked. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's confirmed, along with AntiRacist Watch (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding WhatsUpAfrica (talk · contribs); same M.O. of adding content to Habesha people in front of a citation that doesn't corroborate it: 05:35, 12 June 2020‎. Another widely-encompassing username. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked WhatsUpAfrica; I've seen enough where WP:QUACK applies. But also adding 2601:14D:8500:2200:51AD:B2C7:F57:D8A1 (talk). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also add EHabeshaE (talk · contribs), whome someone else had already blocked. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're up to date at this time. Those accounts can be considered confirmed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23 September 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


I was assuming good faith that there was concern about the content at Habesha peoples, on the part of a new editor who was heretofore uninvolved (and hence my own hesitance to invoke WP:QUACK). But bringing up "pushing a scientific racism agenda" (diff) while making no acknowledgment of WP:RS (after repeated requests to do so) is beginning to sound depressingly familiar (past example). HistoryEtCulture's suggestion that we forego reliable sources in favor of "non-traditional" sources (diff) is the same one that blocked sock Llakew18 made at WP:NPOV/N back in April (diff). The lengthy talk page posting complete with references (diff) is also something of a hallmark (compare HornAfricanHistory's edit). It also occurs to me that the "Et" in the username stands for "Ethiopia" as with previous usernames (as opposed to the Latin "et" e.g. "History and culture"). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CU is  Stale, perhaps by design – CU information for WhatsUpAfrica (the last one) went stale around 9/16, and HistoryEtCulture was registered on 9/18. Behaviorally, I'm inclined to block, but a bit more evaluation is required. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, based partly on technical information, I find the link between this account and prior accounts to be at least  Likely. Combined with behavioral overlaps, I am going to block.  Blocked and tagged. In searching for sleepers I came across the account Televisão Brasilera which is  Technically indistinguishable to HistoryEtCulture; however, without further behavioral cues of a connection I will not block for now. Closing. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 September 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Mentioned before or with the first CU
Mentioned after the first CU

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me

  • First two (IPv4) addresses: Same edits on P'ent'ay by MASONET IPs.
  • Second two (IPv6) addresses: Same edits, and the same ISP/region in WHOIS as 2601:14D:8581:2C70:0:0:0:0/64 which as rangeblocked earlier in this SPI.
  • Nannasn: already blocked, just adding for completeness here.

– Frood (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I certainly wouldn't object to anyone checking on Nannasn, but if their sentiments are the same as Hoaeter & Co., their method seems a little different. (Or perhaps it's WP:MEAT.) Nannasn's block should stand, anyway; like Hoaeter & Co. they weren't here to help build an encyclopedia. My $0.02. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. I originally didn't request because it was just IPs, but this account doesn't look like it'd be stale yet. At least to compare against the most recent users in the archive. Requesting CU for Nannasn to check if it's actually a sock or just NOTHERE. – Frood (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there's an active discussion again, I wonder if it's worth pointing out that Hoaeter came back to edit their own talk page and make an unblock request (Diff). I am not sure what the "confession" therein refers to, but HistoryEtCulture made the same unblock request (Diff). (Both were denied.) If nothing else it's a fresh edit by Hoaeter that might yield better CU results. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May an additional check be performed for this new account which has made contributions to the same articles, with a painstakingly similar name to the other accounts? User:Habeshacomedies is another suspected sockpuppet (or arguably blatant one) as they have performed contributions to the same set of articles which the other accounts have been involved with. This new Wikipedian account appears to be another countless attempt to evade a block for sockpuppeting among other issues such as pushing a Habesha-based agenda. It is quite tiresome. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following IP User:79.160.182.80 may be another suspected sockpuppet. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 2601:140:A:F661:D537:3A32:8AA5:60FD. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Leulseged3. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to recent investigations, please refer to User talk:Hoaeter as they confessed to all the accounts already involved in Wikipedia editing. POV-pushing on Habesha peoples continues, and I had to revert agenda pushing on Simple Wikipedia too. This is all getting quite tiring. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: One weird thing I noticed was that EthiopianHabesha (from the archives) has a very different timecard from most of the other socks (at least the ones with significant editing histories). They stopped editing in 2017 after they got topic banned. Maybe they're not the same person, or maybe they just moved to another time zone. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Habeshacomedies also backs on to the range Hoaeter uses. The claims at the user talkpage are both part of a smear campaign and an admission. So do not take that at face value. There is also not sufficient evidence for MfactDr or Leulseged3, and can be refiled for when there is evidence. All other IPs are stale, and all other accounts are blocked. Closing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

I had already blocked YejjuGondar earlier this month as per WP:QUACK; their Template:Ethiopian-Eritrean Cultural and Historical Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was effectively a POV fork of Template:Habesha peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (see the Tfd).

In the last couple of weeks or so, the Hoaeter / Habesha Union editing pattern has been at Ethiopian nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I blocked WelcomeToAmerica 10 days ago, per WP:QUACK. More recently, JohnStewart256 ([6]), and before that, the listed IP addresses ([7], [8]), have sought to reintroduce (more or less) the same content as WelcomeToAmerica ([9]). (I tagged a couple of the IPs, but otherwise haven't taken further action, other than leaving a note a moment ago at Talk:Ethiopian nationalism).

Mainly I'm wondering if there are more socks in the drawer (and to compare with YejjuGondar before their edits are too stale). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Gyrofrog (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Redacted, I was wrong, he doesn't fit as a sockpuppet its just a bad faith editor. The user is an Eritrean Nationalist, not Ethiopian. Just happened to edit after one of his known sockpuppets. Jyggalypuff (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Please refer to P'ent'ay contribution history, in addition to the talk page, and also the Habesha peoples page and talk page for Amhara people. These IPs has performed verbatim the same attempts as countless times attempted before. I would also like to request a permanent protection of the articles from new users and anonymous IP addresses, because this is now just getting quite tiresome, and the seeming continuous years long sockpuppetry is just insanity at this point. Excuse me if I have violated any policies pertaining to attacking, but this is just enough. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021-02-15

Since this report is still open, I am adding TomJery123, whom I have already blocked based on behavioral evidence. TomJery123 reintroduced the same content to Ethiopian nationalism (2021-02-15) as JohnStewart256 (2020-11-23), one of the accounts from the last SPI report. Also, not long after page protection expired at Habesha peoples, several anonymous IPs have been doing WP:DRIVEBY tagging: 2601:14d:8581:2c70:45c6:476:a2de:cbf4 (2021-02-10), 2601:14d:8581:2c70:4c47:b49:cd8e:c4f8 (2021-02-11), 2601:14d:8500:2200:a929:42d1:39c2:bc33 (2021-02-14 & 2021-02-15); meanwhile 2601:14d:8500:2200:9824:bf39:ef9c:563e reintroduces the familiar panethnicity concept to that article (2021-02-15). Would appreciate checking for other socks in the drawer, thanks... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding ItsLife1, for their contributions immediately pertaining to Ethiopia and Habesha peoples-related articles, particularly their instant revocation of a rejected edit on P'ent'ay. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- same thing caught my eye with ItsLife1's P'ent'ay edit, that it was in response to an anonymous edit request that had already been denied (the article is semi-protected). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any assistance with this? I have left a strong, concise report at the ANI noticeboard about this issue. They continue even today. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open since January and nothing has been done. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Bundling for convenience: The /64s involved are

both on the same large Comcast /20. Blablubbs|talk 16:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Comment: I've blocked ItsLife1, whose account had already been tagged as a suspected sock. Updated tag for TomJery123. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've blocked the two IPv6 /64 ranges (2601:14D:8500:2200/64 and 2601:14D:8581:2C70/64) for a year each as a normal admin action. They're sticky and obviously continue to be used for socking.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01 March 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Please refer to this https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amhara_people&diff=prev&oldid=1009401001&diffmode=source. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm heretofore unfamiliar with the Habeshan negus account. I am not (yet) sure that their behavior overlaps with that of Hoaeter, who I've been watching for about a year. I would imagine that any overlap could have turned up in a checkuser result by now. However, I did find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Habeshan negus, so while it might not be related to this sockpuppetry case, there is a previous sockpuppetry case. For what that's worth. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upon seeing such similar apparent POV pushing, and the grammar, I suspected this would have been Hoaeter and my "antennas" went up. If this would not be so, then would it be better to place them into a disruptive editor report? I do apologize if this is indeed a false positive. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

08 April 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


They have similar, yet improved upon grammar, according to the incidents at Talk:P'ent'ay, and have come with the same argument pertaining to the establishment of this movement. Their contributions even add the infobox flags and other grammatical terms and other items used by various other sockpuppets, which appeared to be the greatest giveaway. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Confirmed.
Also found and  Confirmed:
HOA101 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
All accounts will be bagged and tagged. This SPI can be closed... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

User:Gyrofrog already blocked AmericanMan18 as a suspected sockpuppet, but that isn't yet noted on this page. Less than two hours later, AlejandroEstephanos, a brand new account, made nearly identical edits to Christian democracy and American Solidarity Party ([12] [13] and [14] [15]). Vahurzpu (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HabeshaHornAfrican has made massive changes on the page Habesha peoples that promotes a perspective, uses language, and cites sources that multiple Hoaeter puppets have employed in the recent past. These have been reversed by another editor. HabeshaHornAfrican has posted material harassing Gyrofrog on the latter's Talk page. Gyrofrog has seen to the banning of the last several Hoaeter puppets to edit Habesha peoples. Gyrofrog is taking a break from Wikipedia, & has not interacted with HabeshaHornAfrican on Habesha peoples or Talk:Habesha peoples. Pathawi (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pathawi, I'm moving this up to the 5 May report since it's still open. I guess I'm not really on a Wikibreak and will update my user pages accordingly... I'm also adding AlazarSantos to the list. I've gone ahead and blocked both new accounts, given obvious WP:DUCK test. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gyrofrog, for what it's worth, I just added AfroBLM. Pathawi (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Thanks for the report and the ping. Regarding tagging, I guess I intentionally didn't tag BalchaSafo because they don't deserve attention. That I mentioned the username in the block reason is primarily for accountability and reminding myself if someone asks about it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was kind of thinking along the same lines (I guess?) with AmericanMan18. It seemed so obvious, such that a new case wouldn't be necessary, and I could simply wait until there were more — which, it would seem, there are, as Vahurzpu found. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Massive dump of text to Talk:Habesha peoples on themes of interest to Hoaeter, using sources we've seen a jillion times. Similar text dump to Cushitic peoples. Pathawi (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Here's an illustrative pair of diffs (massive copypaste edits into Cushitic peoples, restoring edits which I had reverted per WP:BANREVERT):

–Austronesier (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of this user's hallmarks is dumping their preferred version of the article (e.g. Habesha peoples) into the talk page, which AfroBLM did on May 3. I've already blocked as per WP:DUCK. Not sure whether this needed to be in a new report as the 5 May case is still technically open. I added "CUrequest" above since this sock was apparently from a different drawer. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 June 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

A mere forty-five minutes after creating their account, RiverNile1 created Template:Ethiopian-Eritrean Community and Diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which is effectively a WP:POVFORK from AlazarSantos's reverted version of Template:Habesha peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Gyrofrog (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I was literally just going to file this SPI myself, but I see someone has already filed it. Honestly, I think they are related because of the attempted page move on People of Ethiopia.

Oshwah what do you think? Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpions13256 - Seems like a good thought to me... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will there ever please be an end to this? The long term abuse case has been going for far too long. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: I have gone ahead and blocked RiverNile1. In addition to your "possilikely" finding below, I believe this additional behavioral evidence confirms it: compare RiverNile1's edits to Ethiopian nationalism made on 2021-07-11, with those made by already-blocked sockpuppet BalchaSafo on 2021-04-15. At this point I wonder whether it's worth another look thru the drawer. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just added TsionDemeke (created at 19:57 UTC) above. Compare RiverNile1's last edits to Ethiopian nationalism, 17:07, 11 July 2021 the edit request made by TsionDemeke, 20:04, 11 July 2021. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TsionDemeke then proceeded to post the same edit request here (diff), which I've reverted. I went ahead and blocked the account. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely):
RiverNile1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13 July 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

New account SelamJinfessa appears to be WP:PROXYING. The Supermind left a comment at Talk:Ethiopian nationalism suggesting that fellow editors consider incorporating SelamJinfessa's proposed rewrite (diff; 2021-07-13). SelamJinfessa had contacted The Supermind at their talk page, asking the latter to "help fix this issue please" (diff; 2021-07-13). That request essentially duplicates the edits that RiverNile1 made to Ethiopian nationalism (diff; 2021-07-11). I've already blocked SelamJinfessa based on this behavioral evidence. Although they work within the same topic area, The Supermind seems heretofore uninvolved with Hoaeter et al, but apparently SelamJinfessa is trying to rope in The Supermind as a meatpuppet. (I left a note on The Supermind's talk page about WP:PROXYING.) Although I've already blocked SelamJinfessa I feel CU is warranted given how often the new accounts appear after a previous block. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I added AbiyDemeke above, a new account restoring an edit of RiverNile1, and sharing the Ethiopian interest. CMD (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: AbiyDemeke is clearly a continuation of RiverNile1. RiverNile1 was blocked on 11 July, AbiyDemeke started editing on 16 July. See edit comparison for a summary of overlaps; all but two articles/templates edited by AbiyDemeke were previously edited by RiverNile1. More specifically, on pages where RiverNile1 was reverted, AbiyDemeke restored their edits as part of their first edits to those articles (including the one I mentioned above):
CMD (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

And connected to (previously CU blocked):
 Blocked and tagged. AbiyDemeke was not checked directly and did not appear on the checks of SelamJinfessa and RiverNile1. Additional behavioral evidence is needed to justify a direct CU check of that account. Mkdw talk 21:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

24 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

A new editor targeting the same articles as the last known sock puppet of Hoaeter (AbiyDemeke) with the exact same edits:

M.Bitton (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Comment and question: Following their block, HelenTsion proceeded to copy their preferred version of each article to their user talk page (cumulative diffs) — another hallmark of the Hoaeter accounts is doing exactly this (or, to an article's talk page). This leads me to a question, though more about sockpuppetry in general & not the checkuser process. Should — or may — these user talk page edits be reverted as per WP:COPYARTICLE, if not WP:BANREVERT? I am guessing that Hoaeter's accounts leave these as reference points for future editing attempts, but I don't see any legitimate use nor need for the banned user's data, even if it's in WP:UP. Forgive me if I'm being overly cautious (although I feel like a chump for doing the courtesy of asking first). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyrofrog: I'm glad you asked because I saw what they were up to and wondered the same thing, but just like you I decided to err on the side of caution until their TPA is revoked. M.Bitton (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

This series of edits is very similar to this one by AbiyDemeke and this one looks like this series by AbiyDemeke. Another editor already mentioned the latter edit at User_talk:Anthropology12. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

17 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Llakew has a very similar username to blocked sockpuppet User:Llakew18. Both accounts, along with other Hoaeter socks, have edited American Solidarity Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Llakew has also edited in Horn of Africa-related articles as previous sock accounts, for example in P'ent'ay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

And again at Eastern Protestant Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Those articles seem to be an otherwise unlikely overlap, so I strongly suspect Llakew's edits among them are not a mere coincidence. (There are numerous other Hoaeter sockpuppets involved with these three articles, but I'm only listing those I found that overlap across more than one of the three.) Requesting CheckUser for unidentified accounts, given Hoaeter's past behavior. (I can't remember the cutoff for stale IPs, so other than the new Llakew account I've only listed Anthropology12 and 129.174.240.247 at the top since they're the most recent -- the rest are just for behavioral comparison.) Gyrofrog (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Anthroplogy12 was blocked months ago; without giving anything away about what I'm able to see, the technical data is  Inconclusive. From the username and the editing interests though, I'm confident enough to go ahead with blocking as suspected. Closing. Girth Summit (blether) 12:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I feel compelled to point out that, two hours after you did this, someone reached out to me to ask about doing paid editing on their behalf (via the email address on my personal webpage, not thru the one I've associated with Wikimedia, though they knew me by my username). Could be a complete coincidence, but I want it on the record anyway. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

31 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

AfricanEast is editing in the same topic areas as previous Hoaeter socks, for example P'ent'ay (edit talk links history). But a particular edit at Ethiopian Australians caught my attention: AfricanEast's edit (2022-01-31) has the familiar assertion about pan-Ethiopianism vice specific ethnicities (compare Habeshacomedies (talk · contribs) edits at Talk:Habesha peoples, 2020-10-12).

Digging a little deeper, AfricanEast's assertions at Talk:P'ent'ay re: Eastern Christianity (2022-01-31) reflect previous sock accounts' addition of {{Eastern Christianity sidebar}} to that article (Llakew, 2021-12-10; Anthropology12 (talk · contribs) 2021-09-09). Previous checks suggest there may be more socks in the drawer. I listed Llakew above, for the sake of comparison (anything older, including the other 2 accounts I've mentioned here, would be stale).-- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • AfricanEast is pretty  Likely to Llakew. There are some other accounts using the same narrow range, but they don't seem interested in the same subjects; given the overlap in editing interests, I'm pretty confident that they are the same user, and have blocked. Please would a clerk consider the most appropriate tags to apply? Girth Summit (blether) 11:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as suspected, since Llakew is tagged as suspected. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Since these are IP addresses, I know specific information will not be forthcoming. But without going into detail, the owner/location of these IP addresses has factored into previous cases (see Doug Weller's comments in the 17 April 2020 case). I might've placed a rangeblock myself (e.g. on 76.78.140.0/24, but I was worried about collateral damage (and being too hasty). All of these addresses have edited either P'ent'ay (and related topics) or American Solidarity Party, both frequented by Hoaeter. 76.78.140.234, for one, has edited both P'ent'ay (diff) and American Solidarity Party (diff), although these two edits occurred six months apart. But given the topical overlap across the range, and where the IP range is, I honestly don't believe I'm being reckless about this. I'm wondering if it's worth (or appropriate) looking in the drawer for sleeper accounts, given this activity. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. User:Llakew was the last named account (of which I'm aware) to edit both P'ent'ay (example) and American Solidarity Party (example), but their last edits occurred on 15 December 2021. I'm adding them to the list above for the sake of showing the topical overlap and populating the Editor Interaction Utility. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you reinstate my edits and the edits of others that you deleted? I’ve been doing really hard work and research for my edits, I don’t want it to go to waist. I just created this account today so my edits won’t be flagged as spam and I don’t get mistaken as someone else at the student Union center. BlackEvangelical (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The range of interest is 76.78.140.0/23 (see Bullseye). I ran a check on that range. There's some other traffic, but I think you've be fine doing a soft block on it. I see 5 new accounts created on that /23 in the past 3 months, so the collateral damage would be fairly small. There's not really anything else I can tell you, so I'll go ahead and close this. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

25 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] TheLionHasSeen (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May we also consider the fact this user out of nowhere commented on the sockpuppet investigation prior on March 21? Not only that, but the editing style, grammar, and focus of some articles of random variety from those they have had reported against them too? On the Simple English Wikipedia, IP ranges of the same variety were also reported to have committed contributions to the same article types as evidenced here: [29] and [30]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLionHasSeen (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I received a notification telling me my edits have been reverted. Please refrain from doing so without valid criticism of said information contained within the edits. I already addressed the issue of a shard IP address in that I share an IP address with around 41,632 people which may who some subject overlap due to shard geographic, social, and political upbringing within the community. BlackEvangelical (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that I commented on this article “out of nowhere” is a false characterization. The reason for my editing this article was that my previous edits before I created an account were removed because an admin identified that my shared IP address was used by other actors in disruptive ways. I then created an account, to appeal the reversions but never got a response and assumed the admin was inactive and assumed there was no problem if I stated my case.
I have quoted below my earlier request refuting the notion that I commented on this article “out of nowhere”
“ ::Hi, can you reinstate my edits and the edits of others that you deleted? I’ve been doing really hard work and research for my edits, I don’t want it to go to waist. I just created this account today so my edits won’t be flagged as spam and I don’t get mistaken as someone else at the student Union center. BlackEvangelical (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)”[reply]
These are the same behaviors of Hoaeter, especially regarding "valid criticism" complaints. Let me also add for additional administrators, wasn't a similar excuse as such also written prior on one of the many accounts a year or so ago to try and WP:meatpuppet around here? Also, as of this latest revert, how is it they were capable of adding in over 20,000 bits of information that were reverted in such a manner as the previous suspected and confirmed sockpuppets have done to articles before in the Habesha peoples related subjects? The fact all these IP addresses continue the same actions on P'ent'ay and other related and now non-related articles are too close to be determined separate editors, especially over long-standing disputes with P'ent'ay and its related articles—now templates included with recommend denominations with at least 50,000 of a single denomination in a country (and P'ent'ay are nowhere near that large globally in those individual countries). Gyrofrog, I am tagging you because I refuse to stand forth with these same activities again. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this even more insane is continued grammatical synergy with previous accounts and IPs blocked in dispute resolution such as on Talk:P'ent'ay and now Talk:Conservative Christianity. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong for asking for “valid criticism,” all I’m asking is please clearly tell me what is wrong with my edits, I don’t understand what your are taking about. What in my edits are abhorrently mischievous or inaccurate? That’s all I ask, because at the time this issue arose, no clear reason was mentioned. BlackEvangelical (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlackEvangelical (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You never asked for "valid criticism" you merely made a statement accusing me of invalidity. And, really? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’re just putting words in my mouth or I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you misunderstood what I said, I was looking for you to give me some sold criticism of the contents of my writing instead of simply reverting them with no real textually-based (i.e. valid) criticism of my edits. What I mean by that is what information in the contents of my edits, are incorrect or non-neutral in relation to previous edits and editors that did not have their edits removed while following the same procedures as me. BlackEvangelical (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This had already been addressed in the meantime, while I was writing up more evidence (in case it was necessary). Briefly, AfricanEast (from early Feb.), 76.78.140.224 and BlackEvangelical overlapped topics in such a way that it was extremely difficult to believe that 3 ostensibly unrelated individuals, using the same computer, had the same specific interests. Also: I had soft-blocked the IP range 76.78.140.0/23 based on the previous CU findings (from a few days ago). I realized later that GeneralNotability had placed a three-month block on this same IP range back in November, with the reason "{{checkuserblock-wide}}", but I'm unsure whether that had to do with Hoaeter or someone else (there's no corresponding SPI case involving Hoaeter from November). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clever! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ivanvector, I'm familiar with the non-private info regarding that IP range (and we've previously seen other addresses affiliated with that entity). The 3-day block had already expired, but it's quiet now and I wouldn't have placed another unless/until it continued. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gyrofrog and Ivanvector, look at these contributions to the same articles and categories previously reverted. If it quacks, it's a duck!! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to come here to say I had blocked the 76.78.140.0/23 for another three months. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • BlackEvangelical is technically  Likely to AfricanEast (talk · contribs). Behavioural analysis tips this into "definitely the same person" territory, and the account is blocked. P'ent'ay is now semiprotected indefinitely. no No comment with respect to the IP addresses. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gyrofrog: I can't comment on the rationale behind that earlier cu-block (and honestly I don't know anyway) but you'd be within your capacity to block the range for suspected sockpuppetry if you think the behaviour matches. From non-private info it looks to me like a school so I recommend against hardblocking, but all of the range's recent edits do seem to be related to this case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The named accounts have been blocked and tagged, and there's been various IP range blocks applied, so nothing left to do here. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

First edit on Habesha peoples advocating for inclusive definitions. Edit on Ethiopians questioning the existence of Amhara People as an ethnic group with the exact same language and sources as the last sockpuppet that tried this, User:AddisAbaba1 Efekadu (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • @Girth Summit: is it worth checking User:Comparison1? I blocked them on May 12; the WP:DUCK was so obvious that I didn't bother opening another SPI case at that time. It does seem that the edit pattern topic area has bifurcated somewhat (albeit from a common point) between that account (and the last couple or so before it), and Africans321 (and most of the older accounts). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The IP range is different from recent socks, but they've probably had to go looking because their usual ranges appear to be currently blocked. Geolocation is a match, and the editing is very ducky. Blocked, tagging as proven. Girth Summit (blether) 12:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gyrofrog All of Comparison1's edits came from a single IP address, which is in a range that was used by the AddisAbaba1 account, and which has been used in the past by Evangelical123 and also by BlackEvangelical. It's registered to a university, and is likely a shared IP (there is another account on the same IP which is very obviously a different person), but the combination of behaviour and technical data would be enough to call the accounts I've named confirmed to one another. I'm not seeing any unblocked accounts jumping out at me, but they use quite a few very busy ranges - it's possible that I've missed some. Girth Summit (blether) 18:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16 July 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Clear overlap in usual topic area of Ethiopian evangelicalism:

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

09 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

As of this writing, I'm only seeing IP edits, so I understand if info won't be forthcoming.

197.156.107.59 reverted Ethiopian Kale Heywet Church (10:31, 7 August 2022‎) to the previous version (15:20, 17 July 2022‎), most of which was a joint effort by Free Church Evangelical (02:23, 15 July 2022‎, 02:09-02:37, 17 July 2022‎, 03:24-06:27, 17 July 2022‎) and 66.44.115.210 (03:13-03:18, 17 July 2022‎), both of whom are in the previous SPI report. .59 also reverted Meserete Kristos Church (10:32, 7 August 2022‎) to the last version by Free Church Evangelical (02:21-04:24, 15 July 2022‎). Next .59 reverted Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus (10:33, 7 August 2022‎) to the last version by Free Church Evangelical (06:52-07:04, 17 July 2022‎). Finally, .59 reverted Ethiopian Full Gospel Believers' Church (10:34, 7 August 2022‎) to the last collective effort by 129.174.255.57 (20:21, 16 July 2022‎) and Free Church Evangelical (02:12, 17 July 2022‎).

After I reverted Ethiopian Kale Heywet Church & Meserete Kristos Church, 197.156.95.198 reverted them again (21:37, 8 August 2022‎ & 21:38, 8 August 2022, respectively).

I reverted Ethiopian Kale Heywet Church again, after which 196.190.60.122 reverted (19:47, 9 August 2022), using the same Amharic edit summary as 197.156.95.198.

Following my revert of Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus, Pete unseth partly undid it (13:43, 9 August 2022‎) due to the reason for deletion being unclear, and suggesting I take it to the talk page. (FYI: that undo essentially restores the 07:04, 17 July edit by Free Church Evangelical.) I'm bringing it up here instead, as this involves multiple IP addresses restoring edits by a WP:3X user, and not just at that one article. Perhaps this report will better explain my recent edits.

To me, the behavioral evidence is clear that there's at least meatpuppetry going on. However, these new IPs geolocate to a different (but, not altogether unrelated) locale than those previously associated with Hoaeter. While the IPs are all from the same ISP, the addresses vary so widely that I wasn't sure whether (much less how) to implement a range block. Gyrofrog (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add 197.156.103.88; again reverted Ethiopian Kale Heywet Church (10:13, 10 August 2022). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And again (14:20, 10 August 2022). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a named account: add AtoKebede, who added an infobox to Habesha peoples (in addition to the existing infobox) (16:36, 11 August 2022). It appears they copied the top of the source code from simple:Habesha Community, as they also included the {{complex|date=July 2022}} tag from that article; then they removed that tag from Habesha peoples (16:37, 11 August 2022‎). Previous sock Africans321 (from the 01 June 2022 SPI) added most of that same template code to Simple Wikipedia back in June (16:14, 1 June 2022; unsure how to {{Diff}} an edit on another Wiki). Later on, 66.44.115.210 (mentioned above; also from 25 March 2022 SPI), on Simple, added the image that's in the current infobox code there (20:10, 6 July 2022). (Another Simple editor had placed the {{complex}} tag in July.) AtoKebede added the resulting code here. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add 196.191.61.46, reverted Habesha peoples to last version by AtoKebede (13:22, 12 August 2022); in the edit summary they claim (in Amharic and English) to speak on behalf of the ETC (Their accusation of anti-Ethiopian bias rings familiar). They also posted the edit summary's text to Talk:Habesha peoples (13:45, 12 August 2022), then they reverted the article again (13:46, 12 August 2022). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add 196.189.88.119, reverting Habesha peoples (16:21, 12 August 2022). I went ahead and semi-protected the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of documentation, 129.174.255.57 (24-26 August) & 66.44.115.210 (30 August) have both been editing American Solidarity Party, previously associated with suspected IP edits (though not, based on a cursory glance, with named accounts). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyrofrog: AmericanMan18 and AlejandroEstephanos both have edits on that page and were technically indistinguishable to some known named accounts Vahurzpu (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, obviously I didn't dig too hard but I knew the article had come up before - yep, all the way back to the Llakew account. Gyrofrog (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked 129.174.255.57 (previously reported in July 2022) for a week, following a rather obvious edit at Talk:Habesha peoples (diff). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also blocked 66.44.115.210 (mentioned above, and in July 2022). They're restoring the previous edits to Ethiopian Kale Heywet Church (diff), Meserete Kristos Church (diff), and Ethiopian Full Gospel Believers' Church (diff). These are the same three articles that El C protected about a month ago, for two weeks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check 66.44.114.72 for contrast and comparisons on the Chi Alpha page. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 129.174.240.247, frequently seen in previous reports (in fact I think that might've resulted in a rangeblock) and also identified in the LTA case. Restored Hoaeter & Co.'s version of Ethiopian nationalism diff). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block 199.16.126.243, this time, though their edits seem obvious. They restored their preferred version of Ethiopian nationalism (diff), and attacked other Wikipedians on the talk page (diff). The IP address/network is heretofore uninvolved, although it's in the same geographic vicinity as the ones we usually see. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • I believe that user Jazem Jozem may also be a sockpuppet. The account is new (or at least only began editing today), & has made only four edits. Two of these seem to be arbitrary deletions from Talk pages; the third & fourth are the insertion & then deletion of the text of the Habesha peoples page that Hoater prefers into Talk:Habesha peoples—the preserving of this text on the Talk page is something that these sockpuppets have done numerous times. Pathawi (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I don't think the Ethiopian IPs are related to this case. The IPs identified as Hoater in the archive (and a few in the current filing) all geolocate to the US. I'm not confident enough to block AtoKebede based on the evidence presented and the weak CU result. Behaviourally it looks like the Ethiopian IPs could be them, but that wouldn't really fit with a "possible" result, so I'm unsure what to make of that. As the main target page has been semi-protected and there has been no recent disruptive activity from the unblocked accounts/IPs, I'm going to close this without further action for now. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Same contributions to the Chi Alpha article as all the other IPs blocked. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New account added has similar contributions to denominations articles, and reverted previous articles. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The named account has now been CU-blocked, and the IP has made only one edit yesterday. Closing with no further action, although a clerk may wish to tag the named account. If the IP resumes editing, the case may be re-opened, but without a request for CU. Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The same style of edits made by Hoaeter and their alt accounts. Please see the latest edit history at Chi Alpha, Bapticostal movement, and Calvary Chapel Association for instance. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

That IP address has appeared frequently in the previous Hoaeter investigations. It's already been blocked 3 times, the last of which (by Drmies) recently expired and they're already showing up again in the usual places. I'm blocking for another 6 months. The CU request is still open; nothing for CU to do where an IP address is concerned but perhaps they will want to look for sleepers? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hoaeter/Archive&oldid=1146790114"