Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Hoaeter

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GeneralNotability (talk | contribs) at 14:54, 28 October 2020 (Archiving case section from w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter (using spihelper.js)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hoaeter/Archive&oldid=985885299"