Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 186: Line 186:
<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>
<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>


What is this about? [[User:Nicksss93|Nicksss93]] (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2016 (EET)
What is this about? - [[User:Nicksss93|Nicksss93]] ([[User talk:Nicksss93|talk]]) 16:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====

Revision as of 16:16, 28 February 2016


Sumatro

27 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

These three users (the two named and the IP) have the same edit pattern at Middle Ages, engaging in an edit war there today. They also have the same edit pattern at Nina Dobrev. Would seem odd for three separate entities to have the same two interests with little to no edits at other articles. only (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • At the same time that this investigation was opened, I separately started a related discussion on these users (and how they seem to be socks) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible sockpuppets at Middle Ages. Further evidence is there. – Quadell (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To summarize: strong circumstantial evidence suggests that all these accounts are at least meatpuppets of, and probably sockpuppets of, Ceco31, who has been topic-banned from editing Bulgaria-related articles. – Quadell (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer Cas Liber's question below, yes, I believe there is. Ceco31's very last edits before being blocked were to Bulgarians. He tended to focus on just a few articles at a time, moving on to new ones, and always emphasizing Bulgarian heritage and contributions in his edits. While he was blocked for 3 months (with account creation blocked as well), no apparent sockpuppets appeared. As soon as the 3 month block expired, and he was technically able to create new accounts, these new accounts started showing up and began editing the exact same article he had been editing in a very similar way. They focus on the same sort of articles, and use the same characteristic sort of edits. Since they're being used to evade a topic ban, I believe all these accounts should be indef blocked. – Quadell (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
26 May 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Over the past few months there have been suspicious edits on the pages Middle Ages and talk:Middle Ages. The discussion is broken down into two parties, one which asserts that the article under-represents the contribution of Bulgaria to the Middle Ages and the other who disagree. The first party is made up almost entirely of single purpose accounts, as demonstrated in the table below.

A previous SPI found that JanHusCz was a sockpuppet of Sumatro and blocked in January. Given how there is now an issue with SPAs there may be an overlap. So many accounts gravitating to the talk page and being generally in agreement seems unlikely. It is a popular article, but in April the talk page received just 628 views. Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are trumped up charges to me. I don't know who is Sumatro or any other editors, include you. I'm new in Wikipedia and my contributions are only few maps and comments. Look at carefully my work in the article. None of my edits and comments are pro-Bulgarian. How long is forbidden to comment in Talk page? Read carefully my arguments there, before to make wrong summaries as you make now. It is unpleasantly, offensive and unwelcome as a whole. Please, comment the content and read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
Sorry, if I'm wrong, but I think that you supported one of the two parties in the discussion and you just want to destroy the competition with the way "Person - problem. No person - No problem". In this case "Editors - problem. No editors - No problem". Your claims seems too paranoid, by me. I comment on this Talk page, because I agree the claims of these users (I don't know what is their relations). In medieval Europe exist 3 empires - Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire and Bulgarian Empire. The Empire of Germans is mentoined in the article (even is very, very, very mentoined, especially the Frankish Empire), Byzantine - also is written in details, but Bulgarian Empire - The Second Empire in Europe (look at Asparukh, recognized as emperor by the Byzantine emperor Constantine IV in 681 and Tervel, who is recognized as Caesar in 705), where was created the Cyrillic script, one of the most powerful country in Middle Ages is presented with 2 - 3 sentences. I think that every historian and every person, who is looking even one historical book will not agree with the way how Bulgarian Empire is represented in this article. Their reactions are understandable, but your reaction is too strange. I see that the most of your enemies, suspected by you, are from different countries - Portugal, Bulgaria, etc., while their opponents comes from England and USA. The English - American editors knows too small about the history of Eastern Europe, because of the years of Cold war. One example from my country - the most Western-Europeans knows allmost nothing about Prague and her role in Holy Roman Empire, because Czchoslovakia were a part of Eastern bloc before 1989. Bulgaria is the same case. Many sources in Talk page:Middle Ages explain this and is not bad to see and read these sources and what they say. Even if this is not so important, the editors of the first party are presenting sources from many countries - Germany, Bulgaria, Slovakia. Can you explain me why the editors of the other party use only English and American sources in the article, but they ignored all foreign sources? It is madness! It seems nationalistic, by me.--Mandramunjak (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the last six months about two dozen editors have left comments at Talk:Middle Ages. As far as I can tell in this period only six editors have left a comment with peculiar punctuation in the form of a space before a comma (" ,"). Of these six editors, five are suspected socks. Here's the list.

In the case of Amandajm—whose not a suspected sock—the extra space appears to be just a coincidental mistake. I doubt its just a coincidence in the case of Sumatro, 195.24.37.106, and Magnus Agripa though. The constant use of this peculiar punctuation clearly links these suspected socks.

As for Ludogoro and Mandramunjak, the instances could be just coincidences, but these accounts have fewer edits overall, and the users are suspected socks. However, out of Ludogoro's thirteen total edits to the article, three times he added content with the punctuation: 8 May (twice), 8 May (twice), 12 May (twice). So the extra space is likely more than a mere coincidence.

Furthermore, Ludogoro's first Wiki-contrib was to the article in which he added large paragraph with formatted references 24 March. The next day Magnus Agripa made his first Wiki-contrib in the form of his userpage 25 March. These edits by themselves suggest that these accounts are socks of an experienced Wikipedian, and the fact that they first appeared within a day of each other suggests they are controlled by the same puppeteer.

On the Commons, Sumatro has a history of uploading 'Bulgarian' themed images that are copyright violations. In case, he uploaded a map that he claimed was his work but which was clearly a scan from a book [1]. Mandramunjak's first Wiki-contrib was to add a map to the article which was similarly a copyvio 12 April, [2].

Mandramunjak's next three Wiki-contribs were on 24 April, in a particularly heated topic on the talkpage [3] [4] [5]. These edits fell within one hour of four edits by Magnus Agripa [6] [7] [8] [9], and four edits by 151.237.102.118 all in the same topic [10] [11] [12] [13]. So it seems as if the puppeteer was using Mandramunjak, Magnus Agripa, and 151.237.102.118 to tag-team the opposition at this point.

151.237.102.118 is clearly (sometimes) controlled by the puppeteer since he participated in the shenanigans at Talk:Nina Dobrev, in which Sumatro used his confirmed sock JanHusCz to tried 'win' an edit war. 151.237.102.118's edits to that talkpage took place on 21 November [14] [15] [16] [17], half an hour after a comment in the same topic by JanHusCz 14:07, followed by a comment by Sumatro a couple hours later 21:06. Also, within days in the same topic, 195.24.37.106 left four comments 25 November [18] [19] [20]. So we know Sumatro used JanHusCz as a sock at Talk:Nina Dobrev. The above shows that he likely using 151.237.102.118 and 195.24.37.106 as well. That'd mean that 151.237.102.118 and 195.24.37.106 were likely under his control at Talk:Middle Ages.

Back to the 24 April edits at Talk:Middle_Ages, Magnus Agripa makes several edits concerning a German-language source which he translates into English and later upon request gives the German original 17:42 19:06. About an hour later, 151.237.102.118 quotes from the exact same source, revealing that he and Magnus Agripa are controlled by the same puppeteer 20:01.

So all the suspected socks connect except Zheko Sousa, but he's only given one contrib so far, so there's little evidence to work with.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice analysis. It's too bad that is wrong. If we apply this tactic to all users in Wikipedia, we will find that Sumatra has over 1 million puppets. There are 2 problems:
1. Geographically - when I look out the window, I see Bratislava, not Sofia. Rivaldeiro obviously is from Portugal, Magnus Agripa - from Bulgaria, etc. Maybe we are international group? Interesting theory for anyone who believes in conspiracies.
2. Social - I do not know none of these users.
But all this giant work is great. Congratulations!--Mandramunjak (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User name Date registered (first edit for IPs) # edits # edits outside the Middle Ages article or talk page Behavioural
Rivaldeiro (talk · contribs · count) 2014-05-26 4 1 First edit was to user page
Ludogoro (talk · contribs · count) 2014-03-24 30 1
Magnus Agripa (talk · contribs · count) 2014-03-25 73 12 First 6 edits were to user page. Edits outside the MA article breakdown into 6 edits of his user page.
Mandramunjak (talk · contribs · count) 2014-04-12 14 2 Edits outside the MA article breakdown into one about Europe and one about the High Middle Ages
Sumatro (talk · contribs · count) 2013-08-07 223 130
195.24.37.106 (talk · contribs · count) 2014-01-08 62 32 Edited Talk:Nina Dobrev as did Sumatro and JanHusCz
Zheko Sousa (talk · contribs · count) 2014-03-17 1 0
151.237.102.118 (talk · contribs · count) 2013-11-21 80 59
JanHusCz (talk · contribs · count) 2013-09-19 60 54 Blocked as a sockpouppet of Sumatro
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 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

A good summary of the available evidence is at this talk page. The link between Vargala and Sumatro seems established by the fact that both are reliably linked to the same IP (a repeatedly-listed sock of Sumatro's, and an admitted address of Vargala's), while the link with Stolichanin is suggested based on the fact that Stolichanin and Vargala have been attempting to add/replace the same content on Sofia, and Vargala is an WP:SPA created after Stolichanin had promised to leave Sofia alone and been finally unblocked after his edit warring on it. Additionally, Vargala repeatedly suggests having a "past" with Serdik and Sofia, for which being the same user as Stolichanin is the readiest explanation. Checkuser is requested because, judging from archives, Sumatro has previously shown to have a large number of dormant socks. LjL (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. It was what I thought, but the investigation does not look complete. This editor is certainly much more sock-positive. The editor created countless of WP:DUCKs within the last two or three months that were prepared to operate at Sofia article, which used the editor's unique grammar style who even wrote me on the same way in Bulgarian, but it appears that only two of them, i.e. Vargala and Kalin Petrunski have been detected. You need to re-check again, by experience watching the case, I can say with certainty of 100% that you are missing several accounts. Have you checked all possible accounts with links to Stolichanin? If not, I suggest that you finally close after you re-investigate the numerous accounts that got away it. Serdik (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

28 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

The first two are the accounts that used to edit the collage of Sofia article per WP:DUCK, in addition to the confirmed socks of Sumatro that used to edit it. As mentioned at Wikipedia:An obvious sock is obvious these users appear after the block of Sumatro's sock and edit the same things. Judging by the writing style and skills, I believe that all the accounts are Sumatro's socks, except I am not sure for one of them (Nicksss93), but as Sumatro showed this month to have a large number of socks, it is dubious. A checkuser is requested. Serdik (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

What is this about? - Nicksss93 (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Nickss93 is older than the master.
  • Nickss93 and Zory5rova are Red X Unrelated to each other and to the master.
  • Green skokljo and Kargoncium are  Stale.
  • Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sumatro/Archive&oldid=707390762"