comments here /info/en/?search=User_talk:Apollo_The_Logician Theroadislong ( talk) 11:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Ulster1912 ( talk · contribs) added text to Martin Bormann stating that he was an atheist. After the editor was blocked I discovered a reliable source saying Bormann was an anti-Christian theist. Anti-Nazi appeared almost immediately and has reverted three times there (twice reverted by another editor, the third time by me). A bit bizarre as their first edit summary says Bormann was an atheist, but he then posts to an editors talk page [1] saying he wasn't, so I'm not sure what's going on. I think this needs a CU check as there aren't enough edits to be sure this isn't a coincidence. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same pattern of rapid editing, focus on Irish issues, repeated removal of "terrorist" categorisation. Common edits include Droppin Well bombing; [2] [3] 1974 British Airways bombing attempt; [4] [5]. Both accounts have edited extensively on Eoin O'Duffy. A common interest in Euroscepticism in the Republic of Ireland suggests that Irish eurosceptic may be another sock; see this edit [6] for confirmation. Checkuser requested to identify other possible accounts. RolandR ( talk) 21:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Immediately after the block of an IP-puppet, two new accounts spring up repeating the same edits. On Arthur Griffith, blocked IP [7] and two more; Arthur o'gara [8] and two more. On John Bingham (loyalist) , blocked sock [9] and two more; Jamespames [10]. CU requested to identify other lurking socks. RolandR ( talk) 00:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
CheckUser Confirmed socks. They're all using open proxies so I can't confirm it's Apollo The Logician - this is what I'm using to link to this master -
[11]
[12].
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs) 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See all the comments from that user at User talk:89.100.39.82. Additionally, Ponyo ( talk · contribs) has already blocked the IP address as a CheckUser block; I revoked talk page access. Please note, I am not requesting confirmation that this IP address belongs to Apollo The Logician; that's already completely obvious. I am just reporting this here for the record, and because Guy Macon ( talk · contribs) requested we post the IP's involved. Yamla ( talk) 00:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Self-admitted sockpuppet, [13] IP has been blocked. May I assume that the checkuser did not turn up any sleeper accounts? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no conclusive concrete evidence to support this allegation however I have a strong feeling that the above accounts are either all or partially linked to Apollo The Logician and was advised by @ Guy Macon: to file a SPI with these accounts citing Apollo as the suspected sockmaster.
Since September I seem to be the focus point for a certain editors attention.
I had originally thought that another editor may have been behind the login attempt and talk page harassment due to the timing of it with a then highly fraught article dispute resulting in an ANI report that ended on amicable terms with that editor who I do believe when they say they had nothing to do with it. However the harassment is continuing.
Why do I assume Apollo The Logician? As an editor with a fondness for sock puppets and using proxies who has strong reason for a grudge against me considering I was opposed to many of their highly dubious and POV driven edits and filed the original SPI against them, they are the most likely candidate. Guy Macon mentioned that there are certain lesser known about tools that can be used that may connect or shine a light on these editors.
Whilst at the end of the day these accounts are merely nuisances that end up blocked as proxies there is someone behind them. Mabuska (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Mabuska (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As the previous reported and discovered socks have been blocked as being Apollo, a new account has appeared to continue harrasing me.
Having pointed out in the previous SPI that Tobermore was my 2nd most edited article that one of Apollo's socks had edited ( User:ARD RI), a brand new account appeared called Lurgan boi making a dubious edit no doubt for me to revert. They restored it using a personal attack edit summary. After being reverted once more they post this personal attack laden response.
This response betrays a sense of prior history with me and is all too similar to the comments left by the Apollo sockpuppets User:South Derry Republican/ Special:Contributions/190.52.205.69 on my talk page such as [15].
What also confirms for me that this is no new editor is how in their second edit they are well versed with Wikipedia to find cleanup templates to add to articles [16].
Keeping in line with Apollo traits the Tobermore edit they are intent on enforcing focuses on the Irish revolution, Official IRA as well as getting rid of the word murdered [17]. I had left a simple comment at Lurgan boi's talk page [18]. A new user I'm pretty sure would ask what was meant.
Obviously a proxy is probably being used again however a checkuser may find other accounts linked to this one. Mabuska (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Mabuska (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
what makes you think I made an edit to purposely draw your attention? How was I supposed to know I needed to educate you on the history of Ireland?
No, it doesn't at all. explain how that indicates a prior history with you?
I have seen that template on other articles. I also have edited as various ips in the past.
The offical ira are not even mentioned in the article. What are you on about?
I already explained, murdered makes no sense in that context, see talk page.
I had no idea what the fuck "welcome apollo" meant, I just ignored and that it was just some fella being a weirdo. Lurgan boi ( talk) 18:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Mabuska: Are you saying you never notified the user about an SPI against him? That was naughty. Scolaire ( talk) 20:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: I personally am indifferent to what happens here because I am sure lurgan boi's ip address will just change soon but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You are also misrepresenting what Ponyo actually said. He/she advised Mabuska not to warn me on my apollo account and nothing else. 197.250.8.162 ( talk) 21:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't intervene in the previous SPI, and now I'm sorry I didn't. Lurgan boi is obviously winding Mabuska up, which means he's almost certainly a sock, but neither he nor South Derry Republican look anything like Apollo. Compare this, this, this or Lurgan boi's comments above with this, this or any of Apollo's contributions to user talk (including his own) or article talk pages. Also compare the verbosity of this edit summary to the terseness or (more often) absence of Apollo's edit summaries. Trolls should be blocked. If they are sockpuppets of a blocked troll there may be some benefit in an SPI. But there is no benefit in tying a troll or his socks to a blocked user who very obviously isn't him. Scolaire ( talk) 21:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Obvious sock is obvious - the editor interaction utility is flashing bigtime... Other edits and edit summaries very much match Apollo's style, though the left-wing pretence has finally been dropped in favour of outright... well, look at the user page. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
How is it "flashing bigtime"? Those are not exactly a wide range of topics, they are all related to Irish politics.
Regarding your other claims you need to provide evidence. You cant just say "x is obviously the same". I look forward to you substantiating these claims. Van danken ( talk) 23:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
New account apparently already knows about obscure topics such as wikihounding (per recent edit summaries), using this as an excuse to revert edits restoring consensus versions of articles. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
all I had to do was do a kuick search and see if stalking was allowed per wiki policy. It really was not that hard. Van danken ( talk) 23:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The creation of the account coincides with the latest block of sockpuppet 177.72.1.102. The subject matter, type of edits and grammatical 'style' holds some similarities to Apollo's edits, as do the aggressive and abrasive nature of messages when challenged. There have been a lot of edits in the last couple of days indicating some experience with Wikipedia in the past. For these reasons I believe it is worthwhile to perform a check. Brough87 ( talk) 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Brough87 ( talk) 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Brough you have to provide evidence. You can not just say "x, y and z are all similar". You have to come up with some sort of proof or strong evidence that demonstrates this is the case. So far your expose or whatever you want to call this is very poor. Regarding the IP how is that any strong sort of evidence? literally tens of thousands of people edit wikipedia so two accounts or ips becoming active at the same time is not really that bizarre in my opinion. Why would someone use both an IP account and a regular acount at the same time? Would one not suffice? Kim song-chi ( talk) 19:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Creation of account coincides with other blocks of Apollo's sockpuppets. A number of edits have been made of a large size indicating experience of wikipedia's processes. The subject matter as demonstrated by the [ Interaction Analyser] shows similar editing habits. The grammatical style also seems to show some similarities. For these reasons I believe investigation is needed. Brough87 ( talk) 19:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Brough87 ( talk) 19:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As before, multiple edits in quick succession, similar subject matter, same types of edits. Edits demonstrate a familiarity with wikipedia processes and account creation coincides with the blocks of other proven sockpuppets, for this reason I believe further investigation is necessary. Brough87 ( talk) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Brough87 ( talk) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same interests: philosophy and Irishness. Both have edited Argument from poor design and Evolutionary argument against naturalism. Will proceed to block the sock and close this report, but need to keep the paper trail. Favonian ( talk) 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Similar to previous cases for this editor – has the same interests: philosophy, Religion, and Ireland related topics. All have edited Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union. Other editing similarities with User:Etruscanman114, User:177.72.1.102 and other previously blocked socks. Most became active after previous socks blocked. As a previous reporter put it, "the editor interaction utility is flashing bigtime". Mojoworker ( talk) 20:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed plus:
Account created a couple days after the most recent sockpuppet investigation of this person was closed. Third edit was to revert an edit on Richard Carrier made 2 days before their account was created. User:Michael O'hara (sockpuppet) had edited Richard Carrier a day before being blocked. Eighth edit was to revert an edit on Eoin O'Duffy made a few weeks before their account was created. Special:Contributions/177.86.156.2 (sockpuppet) had repeatedly edited Eoin O'Duffy and one of the accounts blocked along with Michael O'hara on 15 December was named User:Eoghan O'Duffy.
Adding: Pseudo1981 and Michael O'hara have both edited Richard Dawkins (see history), philosophy of history (see history) and Carl Jung (see history). Also Pseudo1981 and User:James lavery (blocked in 26 October 2017 SPI) have both edited Central Bar bombing 1975 (see history). Hrodvarsson ( talk) 18:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Editing similarities are not uncommon. Pseudo1981 ( talk) 19:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 19:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Targeting the same area (Ireland and IRA): Irish Brigade (Spanish Civil War), Sean Connolly, Fenian dynamite campaign, etc. Similar edits: [26] [27], [28] [29]. GAB gab 20:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Created just days after the last sock was blocked at this article, follows the same "real name" naming style and is pursuing the same exact line of argumentation on the same subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As with other socks of Apollo, this latest account is editing the same circle of articles with the same tone and same general intent. In terms of specific examples, while there are other more general editing patterns which indicate overlap, the most clear-cut include:
(Personally I have held-off on SPI for this user's socks for some time. But, after years of attempting to assist the user, am kinda sick of the result being ad hominem attacks in response). Guliolopez ( talk) 00:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I was going to file a SPI on this account myself when I got time. The editor is virtually a copy of ATL's sphere of thinking and article scope: Irish republicanism, socialism and religion/atheism and an Irish based moniker. Also ATL had a habit of stalking my edits with some of his now blocked accounts and I find it curious how they came to the Jean McConville article and even left an edit summary quoting my name [30] that makes it clear they were either following my edit history, or had it on a copy and pasted watchlist from another account added to their own. Unless of course new editors simply appear and start checking out edit histories of articles to make reverts. Mabuska (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Previously I had reported several accounts for stalking and harassment of me, all clearly linked to ATL as I was instrumental in their eventual indef block. Most of my edits since then have been making tidy up edits, reverts or talk page discussion and the appearance of new IP accounts with no prior history reverting me appeared to cease. More recently however I have been making more standard edits and as a result new IPs have appeared to revert me all of which betray an interest in Irish republicanism along the lines of ATL.
Firstly whilst addressing the extreme WP:SYN and WP:OR issues at British war crimes and this IP appears simply to revert me [31], [32]. The IP is traced to a proxy server in Nigeria. Then this very similar IP number appears using the same "ibid" edit summary as well as this one that shows a clear interest in or understanding of the IRA. This IP despite how similar it is to the Nigerian one is a UK located proxy server. Both are currently blocked for 3 months per ({{webhostblock}}). This Russian based IP then appeared to revert me also however has also since been blocked (6 months) with the article placed under protection [33]. I feel they should all be indef blocked as socks of ATL, or at the very least "Clare man" per the admin comments here.
After this I made a manual of style edit to Gerard Doherty to which the IP 103.9.78.137 suddenly appears to revert, and then reverted again however this time with an edit summary that betrayed their Irish republican slanted bias on the issue. Considering this IP has only three edits to their name, two of which were reverting me and the very first one a random article edit over a week before, and the fact the IP is traced to Vietnam I'd say it is safe to bet that it is a proxy address. I left them this user talk message and they suddenly stopped their actions, however since then I have had quite a lot of notifications of attempts to log into my account from a new device, which last happened months ago at the height of ATL's last bout of harassment of me.
I doubt all these relatively new IP accounts, all of which seem to be proxy addresses, that suddenly appeared simply to revert my edits quite recently aren't the same person, and a check should be done to see if other linked sock accounts can be found and blocked. Mabuska (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Doug Weller talk 19:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed and blocked, not yet tagged as going offline now.
Doug Weller
talk 19:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Some very similar edits, a similar talk page style, and other edits showing a similar point of view or interest in the same topics.
I haven't requested a checkuser, but I have no objection if somebody else wants to. Scolaire ( talk) 15:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Editor interaction report, with IP, Apollo, & most recent named sock
New mobile, same old edits. At this point active for 30 hrs only. Main edits are, as before, adding Irish language name to first sentence of eg Irish art, then reverting when removed. Also removing the orientation of small Irish political parties, another interest seen before. Note IP 80.111.42.187 just blocked on 4 March (section before). This from the archived section for 25 November 2017 also applies "As before, multiple edits in quick succession, similar subject matter, same types of edits. Edits demonstrate a familiarity with wikipedia processes ....". No need to notify - he's turned up while I am doing this (below).
Thanks to User:Scolaire for spotting - this copied from my talk page: "Hi. Have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician/Archive#04 March 2018. The two socks added "lan-ga" templates at Belfast Telegraph, Anderstown News, People Before Profit Alliance, Solidarity (Ireland), Independent Alliance (Ireland) and others. Do you think another SPI is warranted in the light of this? -- Scolaire ( talk) 16:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Irish names:
- and others.
Political parties:
- and others. Johnbod ( talk) 18:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
So two types of edit(s) that I made were also made by another editor. Is that really much of a suprise or even enough evidence to convict someone? 80.111.231.187 ( talk) 18:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, adding "lang-ga" to articles is not traditional Apollo behaviour, as far as I can remember. He seems to have only started it in his Dia is ainm dom / 80.111.42.187 incarnation. Thus the addition of "lang-ga" to multiple articles by 80.111.231.187, as well as the proximity of the IP addresses, ties it to a confirmed sock of Apollo rather than directly to Apollo himself. Nonetheless, I think the evidence is compelling that they are all the same person. Apologies to Johnbod for not making this clear on his talk page. Scolaire ( talk) 10:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
If any further sockpuppetry is found, it's time to consider WP:THREESTRIKES (though Apollo has had substantially more than three strikes) and consider the user WP:CBAN'ed under that policy. -- Yamla ( talk) 11:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Evidence since the opening of this case: Apollo's aggressive talk page style here and here. Scolaire ( talk) 11:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Adding 188.141.3.226. This edit by Dia is ainm dom (confirmed sock) was restored by him a few days later. Apollo and 80.111.42.187 both edited Bobby Beggs, a very low-traffic article, and 188.141.3.226 edited Beggs (surname). An edit by 188.141.3.226 at Gaels was restored by 80.111.231.187 the following day. 188.141.3.226 has added "lang-ga" templates at Independent Nationalist and Leo Varadkar. -- Scolaire ( talk) 11:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Classic Apollo trolling behaviour at
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I am the editor in question here. Scolaire this evidence is very weak. Not only are the edits you have provided not trolling (I would be interested in hearing why you think the edits are trolling) but you have also not provided any evidence that "Apollo" did similar "trolling" as you have called it. 80.111.164.98 ( talk) 11:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I blocked 80.111.164.98 for one week. The other IP's edits are too old. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
1.I added completely different content to "Apolo The Logician" to Patrick Pearse's article. How would both edits being "controversial" prove or be evidence for something?
2.Ok so we have both added page view statistics. Is that the only other "similarity"? If so you are really lacking in the evidence department.
3.I let everyone know in my edit summary if I am adding viewer statistics. Apollo The Logician evidently did not.
4.Simply stating that a post of mine has "Apollo written all over it" is not evidence for anything. Anybody can claim anything has anything written over anything. What matters is if you have the evidence to back it up. You have provided no evidence whatsoever. 195.22.229.22 ( talk) 17:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Blocked one month as a proxy.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Account created in April 2018, obvious similarity in name. Edits to Siol nan Gaidheal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), nationality changes (from Spanish to Basque: 1, 2, many others; from Spanish to Catalan: 1, 2, many others), general interest in Celtic/Gaelic articles and socialist/communist articles. Account is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 23:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I've had several encounters with ApolloCarmb in Venezuela related articles, where they engaged in POV pushing of socialism ( [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] and many others). After the block, I patrolled their contributions to improve NPOV. The user has also made nationality changes from British to Scottish and from British to Welsh, removed the "terrorist" categorisation or rephrased the term ( [69] [70] [71] [72] and others) and like The Logician ( [73] [74]), they have edited in articles related to the 2016 DNC email leak in the US to question the Russian involvement in the cyber attack ( [75] [76] [77] [78]). I'll leave the edit warring report here in case it is needed.-- Jamez42 ( talk) 02:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Looking at their old user page can reveal some similarities as well. Apollo the Logician created the now deleted Embassy of Cuba, Dublin while Apollocarmb created the article Cuba–Ireland relations. Both users have a strong socialist and Irish bias.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 03:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Began editing soon after the block of ApolloCarmb. Edits to Ruaraidh Erskine, Scots National League, Pan-Celticism, all of which recently were edited by ApolloCarmb. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 22:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The IP admitted being a sockpuppet of the Apollo The Logician ( [79] [80] [81]), arguing that "they were not blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia" after I filed a complaint to the sysops about ApolloCarmb ( [82]), who edited in the article of the Venezuelan presidential elections and also edited its Spanish version; the IP reverted my editions in the article after the block [83] [84]. In the English Wikipedia it shares the same pattern of editing Celtic/Gaelic articles and it has been previously suggested that the IP belongs to Apollo. It is currently blocked for a year and was also blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia.-- Jamez42 ( talk) 01:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Jamez42 ( talk) 01:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Jamez42 ( talk) 01:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This IP has started editing a week ago and from the first moment I suspected it belonged to Apollo The Logician, but I wanted to wait some time to watch its editing pattern.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Looking at ApolloCarmb's editing history it is certainly clear that it is most certainly not the case that ApolloCarmb solely edited the Venezuelan Presidential Election article. He/she edited a wide range of articles. He/she was also Irish, while I am Norwegian (Google my IP address). Also I am not edit warring. Just look at the revision history. I should also add that the accusation that both I and ApolloCarmb were/are "pro-government" has been made without evidence, that which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 72.35.247.10 ( talk) 17:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU declined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I originally came across ApolloCarmb, a sock of Apollo The Logician. Claíomh Solais does not seem to be very active in Venezuelan-related articles and soon after the sock ApolloCarmb and a potential IP sock were blocked, Claíomh Solais appeared in a Venezuelan article.
Claíomh Solais and Apollo appear to have similar interests including user pages with Irish and Socialist related material. [1] [2] A closer look using the Editor Interaction Analyser shows that Apollo and Claíomh Solais had a similar edit pattern. This shows potential behavioural evidence. For instance, after the two were involved in various articles that had similar content, the only edits that they ever make to Talk:Fidel Castro is one trying to build a consensus surrounding lede material, with the edit happening minutes apart. Looking at their Interaction Timeline, you can see that shortly after Apollo's account was created, they both edit articles like Frank Ryan (Irish republican), Left Unity (UK) and others.
In other instances, Claíomh Solais attempts to create a consensus to unblock Apollo and did not believe they were a sockpuppet. Here, Claíomh Solais states that the calls to block Apollo for their behavior "are just as needlessly politically partisan". In a second block attempt discussing sockpuppets, Claíomh Solais states about Apollo that " I think he/she should be unblocked if there is no solid proof. The criteria used looks quite subjective." I find the "he/she" usage interesting, as the recently blocked IP used this as well ("He/she edited a wide range of articles. He was also Irish, while I am Norwegian").
I am submitting this out of caution as I do see potential behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry mentioned in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations article. In advance, thank you for any oversight and I do not wish that sockpuppetry is the case here. Again this is respectively being done out of caution. -- ZiaLater ( talk) 01:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Since this investigation was opened, I'm also going to request an investigation on IP 185.62.87.16 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), which has had a little interaction with Claíomh Solais. It started editing in the article of British war crimes ( 1, 2, 3, 4), where it was warned of disruptive editing. After six months without editing, it suddenly started editing again on Venezuela related articles after the last suspected IPs were blocked and the article of the presidential elections was protected. The other topics edited were Syria, North Korea and Stalinism, similar topics in which ApolloCarmb was involved, in some cases engaging in whitewashing. I should also mention again the plan referencing without details such as both the author and source name or dates ( 1, 2, 3), an editing pattern shared with ApolloCarmb and previous blocked IPs. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 03:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to add Leftwinguy92 to the investigation, for the following reasons:
Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yous all need to stop with the hysteria. It's very amusing to watch yous hysterically accuse people due to some similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.62.85.68 ( talk • contribs)
I am not Apollo, although I do share some of the same interests as him (an interest in Irish affairs and socialism/anti-imperialist topics is hardly an uncommon trait) and would probably buy him a pint IRL. I am happy for a checkuser to be done to prove we are not the same people. Some edits that kind of show otherwise; on the Frank Ryan article here is an edit where I re-add information Apollo removed and (I could be wrong as this was an anonymous account) I think Apollo left a message on my talk sometime last year.
Could be wrong and if so apologies for presuming bad faith here, but this request appear to be sourgrapes from Zia for me asking that the WP:NPOV be applied to the article Venezuelan presidential election, 2018 (I do not think that Wikipedia should be used as a propaganda platform for the US government and its proxies to try and incite a coup d'etat against President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, as we are supposed to be neutral). Claíomh Solais ( talk) 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, didn't see that this had already been cleared up. Cool. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 22:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Claíomh Solai and Leftwinguy92 are
Unrelated to the master and to each other. Leftwinguy92 is
Confirmed to
Torygreen84 (
talk ·
contribs ·
count). Blocked and tagged accordingly.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 12:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torygreen84. Closing case. Sro23 ( talk) 00:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:DUCK for an IP in the same range as many previous Apollo socks (see archive for 80.111.42.187, 80.111.231.187, 80.111.164.98, 80.111.230.60, etc.) Same editing pattern, similar articles, same talk page style. Quack. @ Jon C.:. Refiling properly for User:Bastun. Stickee (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Nobody even bothered to inform me this was happening so that already gives me an idea of how robust and fair this process is going to be. An interest in socialism and Irish nationalism is hardly anything rare now is it? There are numerous Irish political parties dedicated to those things ( Sinn Fein, Workers Party of Ireland, Saoradh, Communist Party of Ireland, Irish Republican Voice etc etc). Now, regarding my "talk page style", in what manner is it the same? You have simply linked a talk page comment by me with no explanation whatsoever as to how the style is similar, which is not very convincing. So far I am not getting the impression that this is a very judicial process or not a Kangaroo court. 80.111.179.171 ( talk) 12:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring, disruptive editing and POV pushing in articles about Marxism, Ireland and Venezuela, among other topics. Quack. @ Pinkbeast:@ JzG: Pinging other editors involved: Jamez42 ( talk) 23:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I should also note that this IP was relatively inactive until @ 80.111.179.171: was blocked. I suggest these blocks are extended like with previous IPs, provided that's the decision. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 23:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Identical edit to 80.111.164.98 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) on Arthur Griffith, see the Michael Laffan line: 1 and 2. Also edits to Sean Connolly and other similar interests. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 20:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Started editing shortly after the last IP range was blocked. Has edited Authoritarian socialism, Red fascism, David Kirkwood and Peter Casey (businessman), and most edits are related to socialism, communism, Venezuela or/and Ireland. Jamez42 ( talk) 22:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm also adding 2601:140:4000:AA11:0:0:0:0/64 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), same editing pattern. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 22:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
And 2600:1:F17B:78C:0:0:0:0/64 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- Jamez42 ( talk) 08:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
IP is obviously aware of policies (warning another user for 3RR [115] and citing WP:TERRORIST [116]). He is focused with removing information that some left-oriented groups are terrorist or extremist [117] [118] [119] [120] etc. This is mentioned as a behavioral evidence in past SPIs. So are Venezuela-related edits [121].
He has also edited several Irish/Marxist biographies like Aodh de Blácam, Henry Hamilton Blackham, Edward Arthur Thompson, Alexander Johnson, Patrick J. Whelan. Quite peculiar for someone, who according to WHOIS information, lives in Moscow. Quacks loud. -- Pudeo ( talk) 22:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
One more thing mentioned in the 09 May 2018 SPI are nationality changes from Spanish to Catalan. This IP has done it as well: [122] [123] [124] [125]. This includes changing the classification of Spanish from "nationality" to "citizenship". -- Pudeo ( talk) 01:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Similar policitcs and a knowledge of wikipedia policy is hardly proof of anything. There are plenty of people who have left-wing views and know of wikipedia policy. Also that was not a Venezuela related edit, that was an edit to the rogue state article. Oh and another thing those edits have nothing to do with "Catalan" changes, please don't lie, it's clear if you click the links that Catalan is not added. You do realise the reviewer of the case can just check for themselves rIght? 191.101.42.242 ( talk) 12:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Latest SPI resulted in 191.101.42.242 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) being blocked and this new IP got active again just 5 hours later. This dynamic IP is located in Ireland.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Note that Apollo is currently seeking an unblock, per his talk page. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm opening again the IP investigation request since a couple of hours ago its block expired, because of its edit behaviour, of its disruptive editing and recent reverts, its incivility and its disregard for the several warnings. Jamez42 ( talk) 23:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
IP started editing just a couple of hours before the last investigated IP's unblock request was declined ( [135] and [136] respectively, for reference. The IP edits mostly in articles about Stailinism and the Soviet Union ( [137] [138] [139]), Venezuela ( [140] [141] [142]) and alligned countries such as Bolivia and Nicaragua ( [143] [144], respectively). Like previous socks, the IP usually references only providing the URL of the webpage, using sources such as TeleSur and has engaged in disruptive editing, edit warring ( [145] [146] [147] [148]) and uncivility ( [149] [150]). Pinging involved users who might be interested in the investigation: @ יניב הורון:@ TheTimesAreAChanging:@ Galassi: Jamez42 ( talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
PD: IP also blanked its talk page, a common practice among previous socks, and needless to say it has ignored all of my previous warnings. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 17:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I wouldn't be requesting an investigation if I didn't have at least some suspicion the the accounts are related. I would like to ask if the following edit behaviour is enough to request a checkuser:
I should note that unlike previous socks, Redratatoskr has not edited disruptively and has only employed possible weasel wording, which is why I'm requesting the investigation on the grounds of a possible block evasion. Jamez42 ( talk) 11:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Update: the editor has also contributed to the Second inauguration of Nicolás Maduro article, which was also edited by Apollo's last sock. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 11:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Hi there. I know this is simply a misunderstanding. I encourage whoever reviews this investigation to use the CheckUser tool because it would provide definitive evidence that I'm not a sockpuppet. While it feels a bit like a violation of privacy, it's more important to me to have this allegation put to rest and I trust whoever is using the tool is doing so appropriately.
In response to the specific points:
I hope this misunderstanding can be addressed quickly and put to rest.
Kind regards,
-- Redratatoskr ( talk) 18:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I open the request once again given that the IP's block has expired and once again has started editing disruptively and blanking its page. I should note that the IP seems to be Ireland and that there's currently a notification open in the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard Jamez42 ( talk) 16:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This is the third sockpuppet investigation you have made against me were you accuse me of being Apollo The Logician. How many more are you going to make before you get your desired result? Surely there is a rule against incessantly recreating the same sockpuppet investigation. Stop wasting peoples time and move on. 80.111.40.28 ( talk) 18:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for two months. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. My ip changes periodically so obviously there is a change by 1 digit in IP Address. This is a bad faith accusation by user Jamez42 who does not wish others to add the content they remove despite being well sourced. Jamez42 is clearly in abuse of Neutrality Policy of Wikipedia.
Jamez42 is pushing for Pro-opposition POV in every edit and removing all content that goes against their narrative. Many independent sources have also given the estimates as 40% so why not keep both as independent estimates. Stop using Wikipedia to spread your propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.164.216 ( talk) 04:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The IP edits are too old. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The account has edited exclusively on recent Venezuelan politics articles, namely the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Crisis in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, La Piedrita, International Conference on the Situation in Venezuela and Henrique Capriles, among a few others. Besides three edits in the El Nacional (Caracas) article on 25 January, the account as edited actively only since four days ago, on 30 January. This date matches the day when the last IP has been denounced in this archive. Like previous socks, the account as pushed for a pro-government point of view, has included references as bare URLs ( [176] [177] [178] [179]), removed referenced content ( [180] [181] [182] [183]) and overall edited disruptively. Something that brought my attention is one of their edit summaries said " what the source says". This edit summary has consistently been used by previous socks and blocked IPs ( [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193], just to name some) Jamez42 ( talk) 15:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Recently, the user has been active on Venezuelan articles in a similar way as other Apollo socks. Similar edits in the past regarding the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn and such. Original Apollo and Burro have interacted with the same users on their talk pages. Multiple interactions with Apollocarmb. Also, Burro uses the infamous "what the source says" many times. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Please take a look.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 08:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment I would like to point out the interaction analysis between Burrobert and ApolloCarmb and their edits about the Syrian Civil War ( [194] [195] [196] [197]), mostly in the White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) article. Like previous socks, account seems to have started being more active starting from May 2018.
I would also to request a Checkuser for KingTintin ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), who shares edits with Burrobert in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and Jeremy Corbyn articles. KingTintin started editing on 22 January of this year, two days after 80.111.40.28 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked, and has previously deleted warnings in ther talk page ( [198] [199]). The user has placed a lot of references consisting only in bare URLs ( [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211], just to mention those regarding Venezuela), has pushed for a pro-government POV, has restored edits by Simon1811 and Burrobert and overall edited disruptively. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 13:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I can't add much to the evidence that is already available above. I have not been able to look at the timeline of interactions as I get this error message:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/data/project/sigma/cherry/cherryhtml/app.py", line 33, in inner return func(*a, **kw) . . . File "cymysql/err.py", line 138, in cymysql.err._check_mysql_exception (cymysql/err.c:1800) cymysql.err.InternalError: (1226, "User 's51469' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 10)")
I do prefer to keep my edits close to what the sources say as I presume that if I make things up or include my own research other editors would object. If there are any specific issues that arise that I can help clarify send me a message and I will respond. Burrobert ( talk) 13:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater and Jamez42: It's not enough to show that one user edited five pages in common with another editor and four pages in common with a third. This shows the number of interactions between the two of you and User:Snowded, a user I picked at random who has interacted with both Apollo and Burrobert. Over 300 pages! Surely you must all be sockpuppets! What you need to do is look at the substance of the edits of Apollo and Burrobert on those pages. I have looked at all of the edits and there is no similarity, either in the style of the edits or the content being edited, between the two. I have seen far too many instances of "This user is editing Venezuela topics and he disagrees with me, so he's obviously a sock of Apollo." In most cases the user in question is an IP and gets blocked for disruption, so the illusion that he is a sock is maintained. And if saying "what the source says" in an edit summary is proof that you're a blocked editor, then we may as well get rid of WP:V altogether! Try looking at some other SPIs. The evidence is presented in the form of "A changed x to y here and B changed x to y here; A said such-and-such on this talk page and B said the same thing on the same (or another) talk page." It doesn't bother me in the least if Apollo is unfairly accused of sockpuppetry. What bothers me is that this constant use of SPI to try to get rid of someone who is annoying you brings the whole process into disrepute. Scolaire ( talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
KingTintin is
Unrelated. However, the account is
Confirmed to
MroWikipedian (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki). Blocked and tagged the two confirmed accounts. There is insufficient evidence to take any action with respect to Burrobert.
Clerk assistance requested: Please create a new case for the two confirmed accounts.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 18:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
SPA account that has started editing about Venezuelan modern politics topics only about two days ago, being most active since yesteday. Perhaps the only exceptions are the Abby Martin and the StopFake articles, where they have removed sourced content and engaged in weasel wording ( 1, 2, 3), likely following ZiaLater's edits, an user that previous socks have had encounters before. In the account's brief edit history, they have already been warned repeatedly against disruptive editing and edit warring ( 1, 2, 3, 4). Also despite their brief edit history, the user seems to be knowledgeable of WP:BRD, argument that has been repeatedly used by previous socks to revert and edit disruptively. ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Besides the disruptive behaviour explained previously, the account has pushed for a pro-Maduro and an anti-American point of view and has been uncivil ( 1, 2, 3, 4) and like previous socks, the account has referenced almost exclusively with bare URLS and using mostly teleSUR news ( 1, 2, 3, 4) Jamez42 ( talk) 23:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
PD: Last time I was suggested to provide more insight in the accounts edits. The editor has changed wording per WP:SAID ( 1, 2, 3) and hasquoted selective statements, arguably against WP:UNDUE ( 1, 2, 3). Both behaviours have been seen in previous socks. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 23:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 00:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
IP from Ireland edits and engages in a similar behaviour as other socks in the article of Doctors' plot, an article regarding Stalinism and antisemitism, including whitewashing and weasel wording before reverting several times. I wanted to leave a notification and I'm not sure if an investigation is the best course of action, but in any case I wanted to explain my reasons. Jamez42 ( talk) 21:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I have only edited one single article (see my contributions). How is that anything to go on? I'm can't say if I display similar qualities to "Apollo The Logician" but it doesn't make much sense to me to block me when I have only edited one single page. 80.111.226.64 ( talk) 22:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for one week. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
SPA that has been editing since 27 January about almost exclusively the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and related articles, pushing for a pro-Maduro/anti-Guaidó point of view, although the account has edited in articles about North Korea as well. Edit behavior include edit warring ( [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217]), personal attacks ( [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226]), removal of referenced content ( [227] [228] [229] [230] [231]), adding unreferenced content ( [232] [233] [234] [235]), use of unreliable sources (including Twitter) ( [236] [237] [238] [239]) referencing with bare URLs ( [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256]) among other policy violations, including uncivlity. Comments in talk pages by the account have not tried to find a consensus, but rather have pushed for a specific POV or have attacked other editors, showing a pattern of WP:NOTHERE. I've noticed that the account has referenced less with bare URLs in Venezuela-related articles than in other articles, such as about North Korea topics, and I fear this may be in order to avoid detection. Instead, in these cases, RBL2000 has resorted to add bare URLs in talk pages with no comments, sometimes offering the only explanation in the title of the started section ( [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263]).
It should be noted that RBL2000 has deleted the SPA tags initially placed to their comments in the past ( [264] [265]) and that it has used similar insults used by similar socks in the past, such as "troll" ( [266] [267]) and "stalker" ( [268]).
I have refrained from filing an investigation request in the past because at first RBL2000 limited itself to edit in talk pages. However, the edits have become increasingly disruptive, taking away valuable time from editors, and it seems that in the last days RBL2000 has started bolder edits and reverts in main spaces. RBL2000 has been brought to the administrators incidents noticeboard twice ( first time, second time), the last time for "Pushing for controversial with WP:OR despite the lack of sources 1", "Continuous digs at other users, reliable sources ('media') and bringing negative sentiments from other talk pages 1, 2, 3" and "Removing tags regarding their status and describing users as 'trolls' 1". The last discussion was opened on 27 February and RBL2000 stopped editing about Venezuela on the following day ( [269] [270]), only to start editing again two days after the closure of the report on 5 March ( [271]) and continue the edit pattern five days after this date ( [272]), which also suggests an attempt to game the system.
I hope that with all this information there's enough evidence to prove an edit pattern and that the account is being used abusively. Jamez42 ( talk) 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Unrelated. Closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 22:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Before I start explaining the rationale of the request, I want to acknowledge that the behavior of this account has been different from others of these archives. I haven't seen the disruptive editing that has characterized other accounts, and I have personally recognized their disposition to discuss controversial topics in the past. These are the reasons why my main concern is block evasion.
Cmonghost has edited almost exclusively about current Venezuelan politics articles with a pro-government POV, namely Juan Guaidó (46% of the edits), 2019 Venezuelan uprising (17% of the edits) and International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis (13% of the edits), with a total of 86% of main space edits dedicated to Venezuelan related articles. Their account was created on 18 April 2019, but started editing and being active much more on 1 May 2019, a day after the 30 April uprising/coup attempt in Caracas. Other confirmed socks, such as Simon1811 ( talk · contribs) after the start of the presidential crisis on 23 January, have also edited a lot more or been more active in the past after high profile events in Venezuela. While it is true that this also applies for other users, nearly all of this accounts were created months or even years ago, besides having more diversity in their edit history.
Cmonghost also followed the discussion of a thread started by 2.28.247.221 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) ( [273]), an IP that has engaged in edit warring ( [274] [275] [276] [277]), as well as being uncivil and even accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet at one point ( [278]) . If I'm not mistaken, Cmonghost wasn't even autoconfirmed by then; their response took place only 34 minutes after the IP started the thread and five minutes after the last IP edits (see [279] and [280] for comparison). I should also note that the IP's location is located in Great Britain, the same geographical where Apollo has shown editing interest in the past and where several of the non-proxy denounced IPs in the archives are from.
Despite starting using said acount for less than two months, Cmonghost seems to be knowledgeable of editing, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as their acronyms (
[281]
[282]
[283], just to mention a few). This is explained in their talk page, which states I've been editing Wikipedia for several years and created this account in April 2019.
However, I understand if Cmonghost is a new account created by an old user and this has been disclosed to administrators. Last but not least, I would like to add that confirmed socks have used talk pages extensively in the past. --
Jamez42 (
talk) 19:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Jamez42 (
talk) 19:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Hello,
I'm not a sockpuppet, and I'm confident whoever checks this will find the same. A couple notes for the consideration of whoever checks this:
Thanks for your consideration and sorry to whoever has to waste their time investigating this. Happy to answer any other questions if requested. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a small clarification, if it helps. 2.28.247.221 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is not a proxy or VPN, unlike other IPs previously investigated. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 21:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The lead IP is 80.180.196.242. It's clearly Apollo The Logician per trademark combination of topics: Marxism edits [285], Venezuela edits [286] and Irish edits [287]. The WHOIS information is similar with previous 80... IPs in the archive.
After this IP, a load of different Telecom Italia IPs have been used. One of them continued straight from where the Irish IP left from, in a move request initiated by the latter. It is fairly disruptive that another IP has initiated a second move request on the same page: [288] On talk:Social democracy, one Italian IP is answering on behalf of the Irish IP in the same section etc.
New Italian IPs with a different range seem to pop after every day or two, so can you just please check what's happening in the histories of these articles:
-- Pudeo ( talk) 19:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies( WP:SOCK)? They don't appear to be doing anything malicious from the edits linked. I don't see why it's disruptive for one user to request two different moves on the same page, and the second RM even acknowledges that they are doing so:
I apologise for making another request and I hope it's not a problem. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Huh, I think I did indeed mess up the WHOIS information in my head. Sorry for that. But @
79.52.17.197: I actually wish I could keep the same IP
how about creating an account then? --
Pudeo (
talk) 06:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
All of the IPs listed are Italian. There is no Irish IP "in the same [Talk page] section". The 80. IPs in the archive start with 80.11 and are Irish. The number of IPv4s that start with 80. is huge and do not all geolocate to the same place. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
See below.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 15:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed
Blocked and tagged.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 15:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Account started editing in late 2018, becoming more active this year. It has edited extensively in topics about Ireland, including but not limited to the IRA and Sinn Féin. There is editing interaction between FDW777 and Apollo in articles such as the Easter Rising. This post in WP:ARE might be noteworthy. Jamez42 ( talk) 15:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Is every editor who edits in the Troubles area a sockpuppet of Apollo The Logician? The "evidence", not that there is any, would appear to be making that suggestion. FDW777 ( talk) 16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Salvio giuliano: Hi! Many thanks for the soon response! I will provide further information and diffs in the following hours. Since it will take time, I would like to know if there is any sort of "deadline". Many thanks in advance! -- Jamez42 ( talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I will cover each bullet point in turn, mentioned individual diffs where appropriate.
Perhaps most glaring in the evidence is "In these, there is a distinctive feature: little to no edits between 0:00 and 6:00 UTC", wow really? You are aware that most people in Great Britain (me) and Ireland (Apollo The Logician, judging by IPs in previous invesitgations) are asleep during those hours yes?
More to follow. FDW777 ( talk) 17:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I have nothing to hide from checkuser. In fact, I will tell you what they won't due to the privacy policy. I am resident in the United Kingdom (a particular part of England if you really want to know), using Sky Broadband. Not a VPN, not a proxy, but a major internet provider. I am not in the same country as Apollo The Logician. Any similarities in editing have been explained above. That I revert multiple IPs adding "terrorist" to articles or changing Derry to Londonderry doesn't make me the same person as Apollo The Logician, any more than in makes me the same person as the other editors making similar reverts. FDW777 ( talk) 17:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Also I will address the "Like in previous cases, I've found edit summaries similar to "what the source says" bullet point. I have had a look in the archive for that specific phrase, and this salient point by @ Scolaire: leaps out - "And if saying "what the source says" in an edit summary is proof that you're a blocked editor, then we may as well get rid of WP:V altogether". When you are changing text in an article to match what the source says (oops, look what I just said) there really aren't that many ways to phrase the edit summary that don't involve using some of those words in that order (or similar ones such as "reference", which I used it two of the three diffs provided). FDW777 ( talk) 18:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
In case my post regarding my ISP is unclear, I give full permission for a checkuser to confirm the information given by me regarding my location and ISP is correct. FDW777 ( talk) 19:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Salvio giuliano: I've managed to gather several diffs. I apologize if I took too long.
Despite being a new user or having no apparent experience in talk pages, FDW777 knew how to provide diffs in just their second edit ( [416]), as well as quoting MOS:WORDS in just their third edit ( WP:TERRORIST) and MOS:IRELAND in their fourth ( WP:DERRY), suggesting experience outside the said account.
I should also mention similarities in the accounts' time cards Apollo The Logician's, which is most noticeable comparing FDW777's and ApolloCarmb's. In these, there is a distinctive feature: little to no edits between 0:00 and 6:00 UTC.
I also find interesting that FDW777 mentioned communism (or socialism) when I notified them of the sockpuppet investigation and while blanking their talk page ( "Reds under the bed"), which is another frequent topic of confirmed or suspected sockpuppets, even though I haven't even brought it until now.
Last but not least, I want to stress that I am not necesarrily pointing out necessarily at policy or guidelines violations, but edit behaviour similarities and potential block evasion, which is particularly important since the Troubles is a topic subject to active arbitration remedies. I hope all of this helps to clarify my grounds for requesting a checkuser. Best regards. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 16:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Goodposts edited first on 12 January 2019 on the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis article, less than 24 hours after the article was created, during the important controversy that is currently ongoing in the country and two weeks before confirmed sock Simon1811 started editing on 25 January ( [417]). Their first edit was directly a revert ( [418]), already writing "NPOV" as an edit summary, suggesting a single purpose and previous knowledge of Wikipedia policies outside the account. Goodposts continued editing in the article after Simon1811 was blocked on 2 February 2019 ( Editor interaction analysis as reference) Ever since, Goodposts has edited in articles about other countries in the region, such as Cuba ( [419] [420] [421] [422] [423] [424]) and Nicaragua ( [425]), usually writing about the governments alligned with Venezuela's administration in a positive light, including Maduro's, with currently the exception of Ecuador ( [426] [427] [428], whose government is opposed to the Nicolás Maduro administration. There are also similarities in sourcing, including references like Venezuelanalysis and Twitter ( [429] [430]). I think Telesur has also been included, but I can't find the diff at the moment. The edits in the Iran–United Kingdom relations article may also be noteworthy ( [431] [432] [433]). Once again, I have to point out again the similarities between Apollo The Logician's and Goodposts' time cards: little to no edits between 0:00 and 6:00 UTC. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 18:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Unrelated, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 17:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This is being split off from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sq178pv per request by Berean Hunter. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Considerable overlap between confirmed sockpuppets and 'SpaceSandwich'. The account was created in April 2020, and edits in the same way as the sockmaster and puppets: tendentious editing on content related to extreme leftwing politics. I noticed who it was when the editor made the same edits to the page as the sockpuppet Jorge1777 [434] [435] [436]. The editor is also edit-warring on the page of an obscure pseudohistorian [437] [438]. See overlap here also [439]. I think there is enough to warrant a check. The sockmaster is engaging in long-term abuse, so I'm reluctant putting more time and effort into this when multiple new accounts will eventually crop up as soon as this one gets blocked. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I am not using "sockpuppet" accounts, stop trying to censor the truth. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SpaceSandwich (
talk •
contribs) 02:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
If you are concerned with my edits, I shall stop editing the Grover Furr page. - SpaceSandwich — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceSandwich ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
SpaceSandwich appears to me to be related to other socks such as Jorge1777, having the same style and topic interests. The case is also very similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist/Archive such that all three cases might be the same sockmaster. The range Special:Contributions/31.187.0.0/21 and the IP Special:Contributions/80.111.17.237 appear to be connected, geolocating to Leinster, Ireland. Binksternet ( talk) 23:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
If you look at his contribs you see that he has interest in leftist topics, just like some other socks. Also, this account has been known to use personal attacks at people and make disruptive edits. Darubrub ( talk) 17:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same (far-)left POV and exclusive focus on authoritarian left-wing regimes, the IRA and other " Tankie" topics. I'm comparing to Jorge1777 because that one is a recently active sock with a good number of edits.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The vast majority of these "similarities" are just incredible reaches. I have used the phrase "gain a consensus" and so has the other individual? Really? Things like this show that the filer is so desperate for evidence that they have to reach to such extreme lengths for "evidence". Perhaps a "Check User" would clear my name? PailSimon ( talk) 09:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
"with both having a liking for Talk: Fine Gael." - I believe I have engaged in one single talk page discussion on said page, this hardly amounts to a "liking". Once again I would stress that I edit international politics articles, I have edited political articles related to every continent in the world. The fact that I have very tangentially edited an Irish political article is a natural consequence of that. Just as the fact that I have edited Ugandan political articles, Hong Kong political articles, Thai political articles, Myanmar political articles, Iraqi political articles (and so on goes the list) is also a natural consequence of that. PailSimon ( talk) 10:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
the UK where citizens are called Welsh, Scottish etcas an example. Regionalism and nationalities have also been consistent issues dealt with socks in the past: [479] [480] [481] [482].
Its been four days since anybody has commented so is some sort of judgement going to be made or is the lack of judgement implying that the 'evidence' has been judged as weak? PailSimon ( talk) 20:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
A checkuser request was requested before against Burrobert in 2019, which was denied due to insufficient evidence. Hopefully the following request will offer more insight into the similarities between Burrobert and Apollo, as well as other confirmed socks.
Burrobert's first edit took place on 2 May 2015. Prior to 19 May 2018, Burrobert had only made 21 edits, and after that date, started editing more actively and frequently, nine days after ApolloCarmb ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)'s block on 10 May, as well as few days after the blocks of other related IPs and open proxies. Between 2015 and 2018, in three years, merely 21 edits were done, in comparison to over 4500 edits between 2018 and 2021, in the same period of time.
It should also be mentioned that during this first period of time, the articles edited were almost exclusively about British and Australian topics: Scobie Malone (film), Honor Blackman, Samantha Stosur, Altona, Victoria, Dane Swan, Gary Lineker, Alex Salmond, Show Me the Way (Peter Frampton song), George Blake, George Galloway, Altona North, Victoria. Likewise noteworthy are two articles about mathematics: Schnirelmann density, Binary quadratic form
These early edits, like ApolloCarmb's and other socks, where largely mobile ( [484] [485] [486] [487] [488] [489] [490] [491]), and Burrobert's use of British spelling ( "encyclopaedia", "criticised" and "practised", to mention some) should also be noted. There have also been many instances where Burrobert has included "what the source says" in their edit summaries or a variant of it, a common summary used by previous socks ( [492] [493] [494] [495] [496] [497])
Since then, Burrobert has had an overlap and edited in topics ranging from Cuba ( Fidel Castro, United States embargo against Cuba, Miguel Díaz-Canel), Venezuela ( Nicolás Maduro, Crisis in Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan presidential crisis, Operation Gideon (2020)), Syria ( White Helmets (Syrian civil war), Piers Robinson, Maram Susli), British politics, namely the Labour party ( Labour Party (UK), Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn, Conservative Party (UK), Jeremy Corbyn, Gerry Adams, Clement Attlee, Chris Williamson (politician), Alex Salmond), the Soviet Union or Russia ( Gulag, Walter Duranty, Unit 29155), to overall the autocratic left and mathematics, including the Uyghur genocide, and the Bertrand Russell and Bertrand Russell's political views articles, nearly always with an Anti-American/Anti-Western or pro-left wing POV. All of the named articles have an overlap with at least one confirmed sock, and as such the topic overlap is not limited to them: as recently as 18 July, Burrobert has edited in the Mick Wallace and Clare Daly articles, both Irish politicians and Members of the European Parliament, as well as The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL, the far-left political group of the body. Said overlap is also not always limited to a single account: in the case of the White Helmets articles, at least three other confirmed socks have edited in it ( [498] Valkyrie Cain ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), ApolloCarmb, [499] [500] Shinnerfeiner ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)).
While some articles are high profile, others such as Shaoquett Moselmane, Bertrand Russell's political views (a page moved by Apollo and where both him and related proxies have edited in) and Piers Robinson are not so much. The few amount of edits among some of the socks, as well as the amount of socks where there is overlap, should also be taken into account.
Regardless, besides the shared edits in articles or topic themselves, I'll also show some of the content similarities:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I haven’t looked through all the examples provided above. I presume they show that I have an interest in subjects in common with a number of other editors, including the editor who raised the issue. If my editing style is similar to that of other editors it may show that we are all trying to keep to the same community rules and possibly all look at the subjects from the same angle. The articles that I have spent most time on are as follows (it might be worth seeing if any of the other editors mentioned have also edited these articles):
Other points:
Burrobert ( talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
comments here /info/en/?search=User_talk:Apollo_The_Logician Theroadislong ( talk) 11:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Ulster1912 ( talk · contribs) added text to Martin Bormann stating that he was an atheist. After the editor was blocked I discovered a reliable source saying Bormann was an anti-Christian theist. Anti-Nazi appeared almost immediately and has reverted three times there (twice reverted by another editor, the third time by me). A bit bizarre as their first edit summary says Bormann was an atheist, but he then posts to an editors talk page [1] saying he wasn't, so I'm not sure what's going on. I think this needs a CU check as there aren't enough edits to be sure this isn't a coincidence. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same pattern of rapid editing, focus on Irish issues, repeated removal of "terrorist" categorisation. Common edits include Droppin Well bombing; [2] [3] 1974 British Airways bombing attempt; [4] [5]. Both accounts have edited extensively on Eoin O'Duffy. A common interest in Euroscepticism in the Republic of Ireland suggests that Irish eurosceptic may be another sock; see this edit [6] for confirmation. Checkuser requested to identify other possible accounts. RolandR ( talk) 21:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Immediately after the block of an IP-puppet, two new accounts spring up repeating the same edits. On Arthur Griffith, blocked IP [7] and two more; Arthur o'gara [8] and two more. On John Bingham (loyalist) , blocked sock [9] and two more; Jamespames [10]. CU requested to identify other lurking socks. RolandR ( talk) 00:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
CheckUser Confirmed socks. They're all using open proxies so I can't confirm it's Apollo The Logician - this is what I'm using to link to this master -
[11]
[12].
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs) 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See all the comments from that user at User talk:89.100.39.82. Additionally, Ponyo ( talk · contribs) has already blocked the IP address as a CheckUser block; I revoked talk page access. Please note, I am not requesting confirmation that this IP address belongs to Apollo The Logician; that's already completely obvious. I am just reporting this here for the record, and because Guy Macon ( talk · contribs) requested we post the IP's involved. Yamla ( talk) 00:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Self-admitted sockpuppet, [13] IP has been blocked. May I assume that the checkuser did not turn up any sleeper accounts? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no conclusive concrete evidence to support this allegation however I have a strong feeling that the above accounts are either all or partially linked to Apollo The Logician and was advised by @ Guy Macon: to file a SPI with these accounts citing Apollo as the suspected sockmaster.
Since September I seem to be the focus point for a certain editors attention.
I had originally thought that another editor may have been behind the login attempt and talk page harassment due to the timing of it with a then highly fraught article dispute resulting in an ANI report that ended on amicable terms with that editor who I do believe when they say they had nothing to do with it. However the harassment is continuing.
Why do I assume Apollo The Logician? As an editor with a fondness for sock puppets and using proxies who has strong reason for a grudge against me considering I was opposed to many of their highly dubious and POV driven edits and filed the original SPI against them, they are the most likely candidate. Guy Macon mentioned that there are certain lesser known about tools that can be used that may connect or shine a light on these editors.
Whilst at the end of the day these accounts are merely nuisances that end up blocked as proxies there is someone behind them. Mabuska (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Mabuska (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As the previous reported and discovered socks have been blocked as being Apollo, a new account has appeared to continue harrasing me.
Having pointed out in the previous SPI that Tobermore was my 2nd most edited article that one of Apollo's socks had edited ( User:ARD RI), a brand new account appeared called Lurgan boi making a dubious edit no doubt for me to revert. They restored it using a personal attack edit summary. After being reverted once more they post this personal attack laden response.
This response betrays a sense of prior history with me and is all too similar to the comments left by the Apollo sockpuppets User:South Derry Republican/ Special:Contributions/190.52.205.69 on my talk page such as [15].
What also confirms for me that this is no new editor is how in their second edit they are well versed with Wikipedia to find cleanup templates to add to articles [16].
Keeping in line with Apollo traits the Tobermore edit they are intent on enforcing focuses on the Irish revolution, Official IRA as well as getting rid of the word murdered [17]. I had left a simple comment at Lurgan boi's talk page [18]. A new user I'm pretty sure would ask what was meant.
Obviously a proxy is probably being used again however a checkuser may find other accounts linked to this one. Mabuska (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Mabuska (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
what makes you think I made an edit to purposely draw your attention? How was I supposed to know I needed to educate you on the history of Ireland?
No, it doesn't at all. explain how that indicates a prior history with you?
I have seen that template on other articles. I also have edited as various ips in the past.
The offical ira are not even mentioned in the article. What are you on about?
I already explained, murdered makes no sense in that context, see talk page.
I had no idea what the fuck "welcome apollo" meant, I just ignored and that it was just some fella being a weirdo. Lurgan boi ( talk) 18:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Mabuska: Are you saying you never notified the user about an SPI against him? That was naughty. Scolaire ( talk) 20:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: I personally am indifferent to what happens here because I am sure lurgan boi's ip address will just change soon but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You are also misrepresenting what Ponyo actually said. He/she advised Mabuska not to warn me on my apollo account and nothing else. 197.250.8.162 ( talk) 21:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't intervene in the previous SPI, and now I'm sorry I didn't. Lurgan boi is obviously winding Mabuska up, which means he's almost certainly a sock, but neither he nor South Derry Republican look anything like Apollo. Compare this, this, this or Lurgan boi's comments above with this, this or any of Apollo's contributions to user talk (including his own) or article talk pages. Also compare the verbosity of this edit summary to the terseness or (more often) absence of Apollo's edit summaries. Trolls should be blocked. If they are sockpuppets of a blocked troll there may be some benefit in an SPI. But there is no benefit in tying a troll or his socks to a blocked user who very obviously isn't him. Scolaire ( talk) 21:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Obvious sock is obvious - the editor interaction utility is flashing bigtime... Other edits and edit summaries very much match Apollo's style, though the left-wing pretence has finally been dropped in favour of outright... well, look at the user page. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
How is it "flashing bigtime"? Those are not exactly a wide range of topics, they are all related to Irish politics.
Regarding your other claims you need to provide evidence. You cant just say "x is obviously the same". I look forward to you substantiating these claims. Van danken ( talk) 23:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
New account apparently already knows about obscure topics such as wikihounding (per recent edit summaries), using this as an excuse to revert edits restoring consensus versions of articles. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
all I had to do was do a kuick search and see if stalking was allowed per wiki policy. It really was not that hard. Van danken ( talk) 23:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The creation of the account coincides with the latest block of sockpuppet 177.72.1.102. The subject matter, type of edits and grammatical 'style' holds some similarities to Apollo's edits, as do the aggressive and abrasive nature of messages when challenged. There have been a lot of edits in the last couple of days indicating some experience with Wikipedia in the past. For these reasons I believe it is worthwhile to perform a check. Brough87 ( talk) 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Brough87 ( talk) 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Brough you have to provide evidence. You can not just say "x, y and z are all similar". You have to come up with some sort of proof or strong evidence that demonstrates this is the case. So far your expose or whatever you want to call this is very poor. Regarding the IP how is that any strong sort of evidence? literally tens of thousands of people edit wikipedia so two accounts or ips becoming active at the same time is not really that bizarre in my opinion. Why would someone use both an IP account and a regular acount at the same time? Would one not suffice? Kim song-chi ( talk) 19:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Creation of account coincides with other blocks of Apollo's sockpuppets. A number of edits have been made of a large size indicating experience of wikipedia's processes. The subject matter as demonstrated by the [ Interaction Analyser] shows similar editing habits. The grammatical style also seems to show some similarities. For these reasons I believe investigation is needed. Brough87 ( talk) 19:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Brough87 ( talk) 19:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As before, multiple edits in quick succession, similar subject matter, same types of edits. Edits demonstrate a familiarity with wikipedia processes and account creation coincides with the blocks of other proven sockpuppets, for this reason I believe further investigation is necessary. Brough87 ( talk) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Brough87 ( talk) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same interests: philosophy and Irishness. Both have edited Argument from poor design and Evolutionary argument against naturalism. Will proceed to block the sock and close this report, but need to keep the paper trail. Favonian ( talk) 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Similar to previous cases for this editor – has the same interests: philosophy, Religion, and Ireland related topics. All have edited Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union. Other editing similarities with User:Etruscanman114, User:177.72.1.102 and other previously blocked socks. Most became active after previous socks blocked. As a previous reporter put it, "the editor interaction utility is flashing bigtime". Mojoworker ( talk) 20:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed plus:
Account created a couple days after the most recent sockpuppet investigation of this person was closed. Third edit was to revert an edit on Richard Carrier made 2 days before their account was created. User:Michael O'hara (sockpuppet) had edited Richard Carrier a day before being blocked. Eighth edit was to revert an edit on Eoin O'Duffy made a few weeks before their account was created. Special:Contributions/177.86.156.2 (sockpuppet) had repeatedly edited Eoin O'Duffy and one of the accounts blocked along with Michael O'hara on 15 December was named User:Eoghan O'Duffy.
Adding: Pseudo1981 and Michael O'hara have both edited Richard Dawkins (see history), philosophy of history (see history) and Carl Jung (see history). Also Pseudo1981 and User:James lavery (blocked in 26 October 2017 SPI) have both edited Central Bar bombing 1975 (see history). Hrodvarsson ( talk) 18:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Editing similarities are not uncommon. Pseudo1981 ( talk) 19:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 19:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Targeting the same area (Ireland and IRA): Irish Brigade (Spanish Civil War), Sean Connolly, Fenian dynamite campaign, etc. Similar edits: [26] [27], [28] [29]. GAB gab 20:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Created just days after the last sock was blocked at this article, follows the same "real name" naming style and is pursuing the same exact line of argumentation on the same subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As with other socks of Apollo, this latest account is editing the same circle of articles with the same tone and same general intent. In terms of specific examples, while there are other more general editing patterns which indicate overlap, the most clear-cut include:
(Personally I have held-off on SPI for this user's socks for some time. But, after years of attempting to assist the user, am kinda sick of the result being ad hominem attacks in response). Guliolopez ( talk) 00:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I was going to file a SPI on this account myself when I got time. The editor is virtually a copy of ATL's sphere of thinking and article scope: Irish republicanism, socialism and religion/atheism and an Irish based moniker. Also ATL had a habit of stalking my edits with some of his now blocked accounts and I find it curious how they came to the Jean McConville article and even left an edit summary quoting my name [30] that makes it clear they were either following my edit history, or had it on a copy and pasted watchlist from another account added to their own. Unless of course new editors simply appear and start checking out edit histories of articles to make reverts. Mabuska (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Previously I had reported several accounts for stalking and harassment of me, all clearly linked to ATL as I was instrumental in their eventual indef block. Most of my edits since then have been making tidy up edits, reverts or talk page discussion and the appearance of new IP accounts with no prior history reverting me appeared to cease. More recently however I have been making more standard edits and as a result new IPs have appeared to revert me all of which betray an interest in Irish republicanism along the lines of ATL.
Firstly whilst addressing the extreme WP:SYN and WP:OR issues at British war crimes and this IP appears simply to revert me [31], [32]. The IP is traced to a proxy server in Nigeria. Then this very similar IP number appears using the same "ibid" edit summary as well as this one that shows a clear interest in or understanding of the IRA. This IP despite how similar it is to the Nigerian one is a UK located proxy server. Both are currently blocked for 3 months per ({{webhostblock}}). This Russian based IP then appeared to revert me also however has also since been blocked (6 months) with the article placed under protection [33]. I feel they should all be indef blocked as socks of ATL, or at the very least "Clare man" per the admin comments here.
After this I made a manual of style edit to Gerard Doherty to which the IP 103.9.78.137 suddenly appears to revert, and then reverted again however this time with an edit summary that betrayed their Irish republican slanted bias on the issue. Considering this IP has only three edits to their name, two of which were reverting me and the very first one a random article edit over a week before, and the fact the IP is traced to Vietnam I'd say it is safe to bet that it is a proxy address. I left them this user talk message and they suddenly stopped their actions, however since then I have had quite a lot of notifications of attempts to log into my account from a new device, which last happened months ago at the height of ATL's last bout of harassment of me.
I doubt all these relatively new IP accounts, all of which seem to be proxy addresses, that suddenly appeared simply to revert my edits quite recently aren't the same person, and a check should be done to see if other linked sock accounts can be found and blocked. Mabuska (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Doug Weller talk 19:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed and blocked, not yet tagged as going offline now.
Doug Weller
talk 19:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Some very similar edits, a similar talk page style, and other edits showing a similar point of view or interest in the same topics.
I haven't requested a checkuser, but I have no objection if somebody else wants to. Scolaire ( talk) 15:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Editor interaction report, with IP, Apollo, & most recent named sock
New mobile, same old edits. At this point active for 30 hrs only. Main edits are, as before, adding Irish language name to first sentence of eg Irish art, then reverting when removed. Also removing the orientation of small Irish political parties, another interest seen before. Note IP 80.111.42.187 just blocked on 4 March (section before). This from the archived section for 25 November 2017 also applies "As before, multiple edits in quick succession, similar subject matter, same types of edits. Edits demonstrate a familiarity with wikipedia processes ....". No need to notify - he's turned up while I am doing this (below).
Thanks to User:Scolaire for spotting - this copied from my talk page: "Hi. Have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician/Archive#04 March 2018. The two socks added "lan-ga" templates at Belfast Telegraph, Anderstown News, People Before Profit Alliance, Solidarity (Ireland), Independent Alliance (Ireland) and others. Do you think another SPI is warranted in the light of this? -- Scolaire ( talk) 16:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Irish names:
- and others.
Political parties:
- and others. Johnbod ( talk) 18:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
So two types of edit(s) that I made were also made by another editor. Is that really much of a suprise or even enough evidence to convict someone? 80.111.231.187 ( talk) 18:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, adding "lang-ga" to articles is not traditional Apollo behaviour, as far as I can remember. He seems to have only started it in his Dia is ainm dom / 80.111.42.187 incarnation. Thus the addition of "lang-ga" to multiple articles by 80.111.231.187, as well as the proximity of the IP addresses, ties it to a confirmed sock of Apollo rather than directly to Apollo himself. Nonetheless, I think the evidence is compelling that they are all the same person. Apologies to Johnbod for not making this clear on his talk page. Scolaire ( talk) 10:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
If any further sockpuppetry is found, it's time to consider WP:THREESTRIKES (though Apollo has had substantially more than three strikes) and consider the user WP:CBAN'ed under that policy. -- Yamla ( talk) 11:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Evidence since the opening of this case: Apollo's aggressive talk page style here and here. Scolaire ( talk) 11:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Adding 188.141.3.226. This edit by Dia is ainm dom (confirmed sock) was restored by him a few days later. Apollo and 80.111.42.187 both edited Bobby Beggs, a very low-traffic article, and 188.141.3.226 edited Beggs (surname). An edit by 188.141.3.226 at Gaels was restored by 80.111.231.187 the following day. 188.141.3.226 has added "lang-ga" templates at Independent Nationalist and Leo Varadkar. -- Scolaire ( talk) 11:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Classic Apollo trolling behaviour at
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I am the editor in question here. Scolaire this evidence is very weak. Not only are the edits you have provided not trolling (I would be interested in hearing why you think the edits are trolling) but you have also not provided any evidence that "Apollo" did similar "trolling" as you have called it. 80.111.164.98 ( talk) 11:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I blocked 80.111.164.98 for one week. The other IP's edits are too old. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
1.I added completely different content to "Apolo The Logician" to Patrick Pearse's article. How would both edits being "controversial" prove or be evidence for something?
2.Ok so we have both added page view statistics. Is that the only other "similarity"? If so you are really lacking in the evidence department.
3.I let everyone know in my edit summary if I am adding viewer statistics. Apollo The Logician evidently did not.
4.Simply stating that a post of mine has "Apollo written all over it" is not evidence for anything. Anybody can claim anything has anything written over anything. What matters is if you have the evidence to back it up. You have provided no evidence whatsoever. 195.22.229.22 ( talk) 17:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Blocked one month as a proxy.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Account created in April 2018, obvious similarity in name. Edits to Siol nan Gaidheal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), nationality changes (from Spanish to Basque: 1, 2, many others; from Spanish to Catalan: 1, 2, many others), general interest in Celtic/Gaelic articles and socialist/communist articles. Account is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 23:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I've had several encounters with ApolloCarmb in Venezuela related articles, where they engaged in POV pushing of socialism ( [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] and many others). After the block, I patrolled their contributions to improve NPOV. The user has also made nationality changes from British to Scottish and from British to Welsh, removed the "terrorist" categorisation or rephrased the term ( [69] [70] [71] [72] and others) and like The Logician ( [73] [74]), they have edited in articles related to the 2016 DNC email leak in the US to question the Russian involvement in the cyber attack ( [75] [76] [77] [78]). I'll leave the edit warring report here in case it is needed.-- Jamez42 ( talk) 02:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Looking at their old user page can reveal some similarities as well. Apollo the Logician created the now deleted Embassy of Cuba, Dublin while Apollocarmb created the article Cuba–Ireland relations. Both users have a strong socialist and Irish bias.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 03:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Began editing soon after the block of ApolloCarmb. Edits to Ruaraidh Erskine, Scots National League, Pan-Celticism, all of which recently were edited by ApolloCarmb. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 22:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The IP admitted being a sockpuppet of the Apollo The Logician ( [79] [80] [81]), arguing that "they were not blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia" after I filed a complaint to the sysops about ApolloCarmb ( [82]), who edited in the article of the Venezuelan presidential elections and also edited its Spanish version; the IP reverted my editions in the article after the block [83] [84]. In the English Wikipedia it shares the same pattern of editing Celtic/Gaelic articles and it has been previously suggested that the IP belongs to Apollo. It is currently blocked for a year and was also blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia.-- Jamez42 ( talk) 01:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Jamez42 ( talk) 01:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Jamez42 ( talk) 01:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This IP has started editing a week ago and from the first moment I suspected it belonged to Apollo The Logician, but I wanted to wait some time to watch its editing pattern.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Looking at ApolloCarmb's editing history it is certainly clear that it is most certainly not the case that ApolloCarmb solely edited the Venezuelan Presidential Election article. He/she edited a wide range of articles. He/she was also Irish, while I am Norwegian (Google my IP address). Also I am not edit warring. Just look at the revision history. I should also add that the accusation that both I and ApolloCarmb were/are "pro-government" has been made without evidence, that which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 72.35.247.10 ( talk) 17:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts. CU declined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I originally came across ApolloCarmb, a sock of Apollo The Logician. Claíomh Solais does not seem to be very active in Venezuelan-related articles and soon after the sock ApolloCarmb and a potential IP sock were blocked, Claíomh Solais appeared in a Venezuelan article.
Claíomh Solais and Apollo appear to have similar interests including user pages with Irish and Socialist related material. [1] [2] A closer look using the Editor Interaction Analyser shows that Apollo and Claíomh Solais had a similar edit pattern. This shows potential behavioural evidence. For instance, after the two were involved in various articles that had similar content, the only edits that they ever make to Talk:Fidel Castro is one trying to build a consensus surrounding lede material, with the edit happening minutes apart. Looking at their Interaction Timeline, you can see that shortly after Apollo's account was created, they both edit articles like Frank Ryan (Irish republican), Left Unity (UK) and others.
In other instances, Claíomh Solais attempts to create a consensus to unblock Apollo and did not believe they were a sockpuppet. Here, Claíomh Solais states that the calls to block Apollo for their behavior "are just as needlessly politically partisan". In a second block attempt discussing sockpuppets, Claíomh Solais states about Apollo that " I think he/she should be unblocked if there is no solid proof. The criteria used looks quite subjective." I find the "he/she" usage interesting, as the recently blocked IP used this as well ("He/she edited a wide range of articles. He was also Irish, while I am Norwegian").
I am submitting this out of caution as I do see potential behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry mentioned in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations article. In advance, thank you for any oversight and I do not wish that sockpuppetry is the case here. Again this is respectively being done out of caution. -- ZiaLater ( talk) 01:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Since this investigation was opened, I'm also going to request an investigation on IP 185.62.87.16 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), which has had a little interaction with Claíomh Solais. It started editing in the article of British war crimes ( 1, 2, 3, 4), where it was warned of disruptive editing. After six months without editing, it suddenly started editing again on Venezuela related articles after the last suspected IPs were blocked and the article of the presidential elections was protected. The other topics edited were Syria, North Korea and Stalinism, similar topics in which ApolloCarmb was involved, in some cases engaging in whitewashing. I should also mention again the plan referencing without details such as both the author and source name or dates ( 1, 2, 3), an editing pattern shared with ApolloCarmb and previous blocked IPs. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 03:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to add Leftwinguy92 to the investigation, for the following reasons:
Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yous all need to stop with the hysteria. It's very amusing to watch yous hysterically accuse people due to some similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.62.85.68 ( talk • contribs)
I am not Apollo, although I do share some of the same interests as him (an interest in Irish affairs and socialism/anti-imperialist topics is hardly an uncommon trait) and would probably buy him a pint IRL. I am happy for a checkuser to be done to prove we are not the same people. Some edits that kind of show otherwise; on the Frank Ryan article here is an edit where I re-add information Apollo removed and (I could be wrong as this was an anonymous account) I think Apollo left a message on my talk sometime last year.
Could be wrong and if so apologies for presuming bad faith here, but this request appear to be sourgrapes from Zia for me asking that the WP:NPOV be applied to the article Venezuelan presidential election, 2018 (I do not think that Wikipedia should be used as a propaganda platform for the US government and its proxies to try and incite a coup d'etat against President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, as we are supposed to be neutral). Claíomh Solais ( talk) 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, didn't see that this had already been cleared up. Cool. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 22:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Claíomh Solai and Leftwinguy92 are
Unrelated to the master and to each other. Leftwinguy92 is
Confirmed to
Torygreen84 (
talk ·
contribs ·
count). Blocked and tagged accordingly.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 12:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torygreen84. Closing case. Sro23 ( talk) 00:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:DUCK for an IP in the same range as many previous Apollo socks (see archive for 80.111.42.187, 80.111.231.187, 80.111.164.98, 80.111.230.60, etc.) Same editing pattern, similar articles, same talk page style. Quack. @ Jon C.:. Refiling properly for User:Bastun. Stickee (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Nobody even bothered to inform me this was happening so that already gives me an idea of how robust and fair this process is going to be. An interest in socialism and Irish nationalism is hardly anything rare now is it? There are numerous Irish political parties dedicated to those things ( Sinn Fein, Workers Party of Ireland, Saoradh, Communist Party of Ireland, Irish Republican Voice etc etc). Now, regarding my "talk page style", in what manner is it the same? You have simply linked a talk page comment by me with no explanation whatsoever as to how the style is similar, which is not very convincing. So far I am not getting the impression that this is a very judicial process or not a Kangaroo court. 80.111.179.171 ( talk) 12:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring, disruptive editing and POV pushing in articles about Marxism, Ireland and Venezuela, among other topics. Quack. @ Pinkbeast:@ JzG: Pinging other editors involved: Jamez42 ( talk) 23:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I should also note that this IP was relatively inactive until @ 80.111.179.171: was blocked. I suggest these blocks are extended like with previous IPs, provided that's the decision. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 23:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Identical edit to 80.111.164.98 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) on Arthur Griffith, see the Michael Laffan line: 1 and 2. Also edits to Sean Connolly and other similar interests. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 20:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Started editing shortly after the last IP range was blocked. Has edited Authoritarian socialism, Red fascism, David Kirkwood and Peter Casey (businessman), and most edits are related to socialism, communism, Venezuela or/and Ireland. Jamez42 ( talk) 22:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm also adding 2601:140:4000:AA11:0:0:0:0/64 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), same editing pattern. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 22:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
And 2600:1:F17B:78C:0:0:0:0/64 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- Jamez42 ( talk) 08:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
IP is obviously aware of policies (warning another user for 3RR [115] and citing WP:TERRORIST [116]). He is focused with removing information that some left-oriented groups are terrorist or extremist [117] [118] [119] [120] etc. This is mentioned as a behavioral evidence in past SPIs. So are Venezuela-related edits [121].
He has also edited several Irish/Marxist biographies like Aodh de Blácam, Henry Hamilton Blackham, Edward Arthur Thompson, Alexander Johnson, Patrick J. Whelan. Quite peculiar for someone, who according to WHOIS information, lives in Moscow. Quacks loud. -- Pudeo ( talk) 22:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
One more thing mentioned in the 09 May 2018 SPI are nationality changes from Spanish to Catalan. This IP has done it as well: [122] [123] [124] [125]. This includes changing the classification of Spanish from "nationality" to "citizenship". -- Pudeo ( talk) 01:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Similar policitcs and a knowledge of wikipedia policy is hardly proof of anything. There are plenty of people who have left-wing views and know of wikipedia policy. Also that was not a Venezuela related edit, that was an edit to the rogue state article. Oh and another thing those edits have nothing to do with "Catalan" changes, please don't lie, it's clear if you click the links that Catalan is not added. You do realise the reviewer of the case can just check for themselves rIght? 191.101.42.242 ( talk) 12:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Latest SPI resulted in 191.101.42.242 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) being blocked and this new IP got active again just 5 hours later. This dynamic IP is located in Ireland.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Note that Apollo is currently seeking an unblock, per his talk page. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm opening again the IP investigation request since a couple of hours ago its block expired, because of its edit behaviour, of its disruptive editing and recent reverts, its incivility and its disregard for the several warnings. Jamez42 ( talk) 23:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
IP started editing just a couple of hours before the last investigated IP's unblock request was declined ( [135] and [136] respectively, for reference. The IP edits mostly in articles about Stailinism and the Soviet Union ( [137] [138] [139]), Venezuela ( [140] [141] [142]) and alligned countries such as Bolivia and Nicaragua ( [143] [144], respectively). Like previous socks, the IP usually references only providing the URL of the webpage, using sources such as TeleSur and has engaged in disruptive editing, edit warring ( [145] [146] [147] [148]) and uncivility ( [149] [150]). Pinging involved users who might be interested in the investigation: @ יניב הורון:@ TheTimesAreAChanging:@ Galassi: Jamez42 ( talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
PD: IP also blanked its talk page, a common practice among previous socks, and needless to say it has ignored all of my previous warnings. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 17:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I wouldn't be requesting an investigation if I didn't have at least some suspicion the the accounts are related. I would like to ask if the following edit behaviour is enough to request a checkuser:
I should note that unlike previous socks, Redratatoskr has not edited disruptively and has only employed possible weasel wording, which is why I'm requesting the investigation on the grounds of a possible block evasion. Jamez42 ( talk) 11:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Update: the editor has also contributed to the Second inauguration of Nicolás Maduro article, which was also edited by Apollo's last sock. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 11:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Hi there. I know this is simply a misunderstanding. I encourage whoever reviews this investigation to use the CheckUser tool because it would provide definitive evidence that I'm not a sockpuppet. While it feels a bit like a violation of privacy, it's more important to me to have this allegation put to rest and I trust whoever is using the tool is doing so appropriately.
In response to the specific points:
I hope this misunderstanding can be addressed quickly and put to rest.
Kind regards,
-- Redratatoskr ( talk) 18:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I open the request once again given that the IP's block has expired and once again has started editing disruptively and blanking its page. I should note that the IP seems to be Ireland and that there's currently a notification open in the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard Jamez42 ( talk) 16:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This is the third sockpuppet investigation you have made against me were you accuse me of being Apollo The Logician. How many more are you going to make before you get your desired result? Surely there is a rule against incessantly recreating the same sockpuppet investigation. Stop wasting peoples time and move on. 80.111.40.28 ( talk) 18:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for two months. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. My ip changes periodically so obviously there is a change by 1 digit in IP Address. This is a bad faith accusation by user Jamez42 who does not wish others to add the content they remove despite being well sourced. Jamez42 is clearly in abuse of Neutrality Policy of Wikipedia.
Jamez42 is pushing for Pro-opposition POV in every edit and removing all content that goes against their narrative. Many independent sources have also given the estimates as 40% so why not keep both as independent estimates. Stop using Wikipedia to spread your propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.164.216 ( talk) 04:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The IP edits are too old. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The account has edited exclusively on recent Venezuelan politics articles, namely the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Crisis in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, La Piedrita, International Conference on the Situation in Venezuela and Henrique Capriles, among a few others. Besides three edits in the El Nacional (Caracas) article on 25 January, the account as edited actively only since four days ago, on 30 January. This date matches the day when the last IP has been denounced in this archive. Like previous socks, the account as pushed for a pro-government point of view, has included references as bare URLs ( [176] [177] [178] [179]), removed referenced content ( [180] [181] [182] [183]) and overall edited disruptively. Something that brought my attention is one of their edit summaries said " what the source says". This edit summary has consistently been used by previous socks and blocked IPs ( [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193], just to name some) Jamez42 ( talk) 15:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Recently, the user has been active on Venezuelan articles in a similar way as other Apollo socks. Similar edits in the past regarding the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn and such. Original Apollo and Burro have interacted with the same users on their talk pages. Multiple interactions with Apollocarmb. Also, Burro uses the infamous "what the source says" many times. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Please take a look.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 08:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment I would like to point out the interaction analysis between Burrobert and ApolloCarmb and their edits about the Syrian Civil War ( [194] [195] [196] [197]), mostly in the White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) article. Like previous socks, account seems to have started being more active starting from May 2018.
I would also to request a Checkuser for KingTintin ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), who shares edits with Burrobert in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and Jeremy Corbyn articles. KingTintin started editing on 22 January of this year, two days after 80.111.40.28 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked, and has previously deleted warnings in ther talk page ( [198] [199]). The user has placed a lot of references consisting only in bare URLs ( [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211], just to mention those regarding Venezuela), has pushed for a pro-government POV, has restored edits by Simon1811 and Burrobert and overall edited disruptively. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 13:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I can't add much to the evidence that is already available above. I have not been able to look at the timeline of interactions as I get this error message:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/data/project/sigma/cherry/cherryhtml/app.py", line 33, in inner return func(*a, **kw) . . . File "cymysql/err.py", line 138, in cymysql.err._check_mysql_exception (cymysql/err.c:1800) cymysql.err.InternalError: (1226, "User 's51469' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 10)")
I do prefer to keep my edits close to what the sources say as I presume that if I make things up or include my own research other editors would object. If there are any specific issues that arise that I can help clarify send me a message and I will respond. Burrobert ( talk) 13:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater and Jamez42: It's not enough to show that one user edited five pages in common with another editor and four pages in common with a third. This shows the number of interactions between the two of you and User:Snowded, a user I picked at random who has interacted with both Apollo and Burrobert. Over 300 pages! Surely you must all be sockpuppets! What you need to do is look at the substance of the edits of Apollo and Burrobert on those pages. I have looked at all of the edits and there is no similarity, either in the style of the edits or the content being edited, between the two. I have seen far too many instances of "This user is editing Venezuela topics and he disagrees with me, so he's obviously a sock of Apollo." In most cases the user in question is an IP and gets blocked for disruption, so the illusion that he is a sock is maintained. And if saying "what the source says" in an edit summary is proof that you're a blocked editor, then we may as well get rid of WP:V altogether! Try looking at some other SPIs. The evidence is presented in the form of "A changed x to y here and B changed x to y here; A said such-and-such on this talk page and B said the same thing on the same (or another) talk page." It doesn't bother me in the least if Apollo is unfairly accused of sockpuppetry. What bothers me is that this constant use of SPI to try to get rid of someone who is annoying you brings the whole process into disrepute. Scolaire ( talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
KingTintin is
Unrelated. However, the account is
Confirmed to
MroWikipedian (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki). Blocked and tagged the two confirmed accounts. There is insufficient evidence to take any action with respect to Burrobert.
Clerk assistance requested: Please create a new case for the two confirmed accounts.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 18:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
SPA account that has started editing about Venezuelan modern politics topics only about two days ago, being most active since yesteday. Perhaps the only exceptions are the Abby Martin and the StopFake articles, where they have removed sourced content and engaged in weasel wording ( 1, 2, 3), likely following ZiaLater's edits, an user that previous socks have had encounters before. In the account's brief edit history, they have already been warned repeatedly against disruptive editing and edit warring ( 1, 2, 3, 4). Also despite their brief edit history, the user seems to be knowledgeable of WP:BRD, argument that has been repeatedly used by previous socks to revert and edit disruptively. ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Besides the disruptive behaviour explained previously, the account has pushed for a pro-Maduro and an anti-American point of view and has been uncivil ( 1, 2, 3, 4) and like previous socks, the account has referenced almost exclusively with bare URLS and using mostly teleSUR news ( 1, 2, 3, 4) Jamez42 ( talk) 23:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
PD: Last time I was suggested to provide more insight in the accounts edits. The editor has changed wording per WP:SAID ( 1, 2, 3) and hasquoted selective statements, arguably against WP:UNDUE ( 1, 2, 3). Both behaviours have been seen in previous socks. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 23:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 00:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
IP from Ireland edits and engages in a similar behaviour as other socks in the article of Doctors' plot, an article regarding Stalinism and antisemitism, including whitewashing and weasel wording before reverting several times. I wanted to leave a notification and I'm not sure if an investigation is the best course of action, but in any case I wanted to explain my reasons. Jamez42 ( talk) 21:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I have only edited one single article (see my contributions). How is that anything to go on? I'm can't say if I display similar qualities to "Apollo The Logician" but it doesn't make much sense to me to block me when I have only edited one single page. 80.111.226.64 ( talk) 22:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for one week. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
SPA that has been editing since 27 January about almost exclusively the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and related articles, pushing for a pro-Maduro/anti-Guaidó point of view, although the account has edited in articles about North Korea as well. Edit behavior include edit warring ( [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217]), personal attacks ( [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226]), removal of referenced content ( [227] [228] [229] [230] [231]), adding unreferenced content ( [232] [233] [234] [235]), use of unreliable sources (including Twitter) ( [236] [237] [238] [239]) referencing with bare URLs ( [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256]) among other policy violations, including uncivlity. Comments in talk pages by the account have not tried to find a consensus, but rather have pushed for a specific POV or have attacked other editors, showing a pattern of WP:NOTHERE. I've noticed that the account has referenced less with bare URLs in Venezuela-related articles than in other articles, such as about North Korea topics, and I fear this may be in order to avoid detection. Instead, in these cases, RBL2000 has resorted to add bare URLs in talk pages with no comments, sometimes offering the only explanation in the title of the started section ( [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263]).
It should be noted that RBL2000 has deleted the SPA tags initially placed to their comments in the past ( [264] [265]) and that it has used similar insults used by similar socks in the past, such as "troll" ( [266] [267]) and "stalker" ( [268]).
I have refrained from filing an investigation request in the past because at first RBL2000 limited itself to edit in talk pages. However, the edits have become increasingly disruptive, taking away valuable time from editors, and it seems that in the last days RBL2000 has started bolder edits and reverts in main spaces. RBL2000 has been brought to the administrators incidents noticeboard twice ( first time, second time), the last time for "Pushing for controversial with WP:OR despite the lack of sources 1", "Continuous digs at other users, reliable sources ('media') and bringing negative sentiments from other talk pages 1, 2, 3" and "Removing tags regarding their status and describing users as 'trolls' 1". The last discussion was opened on 27 February and RBL2000 stopped editing about Venezuela on the following day ( [269] [270]), only to start editing again two days after the closure of the report on 5 March ( [271]) and continue the edit pattern five days after this date ( [272]), which also suggests an attempt to game the system.
I hope that with all this information there's enough evidence to prove an edit pattern and that the account is being used abusively. Jamez42 ( talk) 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Unrelated. Closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 22:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Before I start explaining the rationale of the request, I want to acknowledge that the behavior of this account has been different from others of these archives. I haven't seen the disruptive editing that has characterized other accounts, and I have personally recognized their disposition to discuss controversial topics in the past. These are the reasons why my main concern is block evasion.
Cmonghost has edited almost exclusively about current Venezuelan politics articles with a pro-government POV, namely Juan Guaidó (46% of the edits), 2019 Venezuelan uprising (17% of the edits) and International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis (13% of the edits), with a total of 86% of main space edits dedicated to Venezuelan related articles. Their account was created on 18 April 2019, but started editing and being active much more on 1 May 2019, a day after the 30 April uprising/coup attempt in Caracas. Other confirmed socks, such as Simon1811 ( talk · contribs) after the start of the presidential crisis on 23 January, have also edited a lot more or been more active in the past after high profile events in Venezuela. While it is true that this also applies for other users, nearly all of this accounts were created months or even years ago, besides having more diversity in their edit history.
Cmonghost also followed the discussion of a thread started by 2.28.247.221 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) ( [273]), an IP that has engaged in edit warring ( [274] [275] [276] [277]), as well as being uncivil and even accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet at one point ( [278]) . If I'm not mistaken, Cmonghost wasn't even autoconfirmed by then; their response took place only 34 minutes after the IP started the thread and five minutes after the last IP edits (see [279] and [280] for comparison). I should also note that the IP's location is located in Great Britain, the same geographical where Apollo has shown editing interest in the past and where several of the non-proxy denounced IPs in the archives are from.
Despite starting using said acount for less than two months, Cmonghost seems to be knowledgeable of editing, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as their acronyms (
[281]
[282]
[283], just to mention a few). This is explained in their talk page, which states I've been editing Wikipedia for several years and created this account in April 2019.
However, I understand if Cmonghost is a new account created by an old user and this has been disclosed to administrators. Last but not least, I would like to add that confirmed socks have used talk pages extensively in the past. --
Jamez42 (
talk) 19:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Jamez42 (
talk) 19:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Hello,
I'm not a sockpuppet, and I'm confident whoever checks this will find the same. A couple notes for the consideration of whoever checks this:
Thanks for your consideration and sorry to whoever has to waste their time investigating this. Happy to answer any other questions if requested. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a small clarification, if it helps. 2.28.247.221 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is not a proxy or VPN, unlike other IPs previously investigated. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 21:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The lead IP is 80.180.196.242. It's clearly Apollo The Logician per trademark combination of topics: Marxism edits [285], Venezuela edits [286] and Irish edits [287]. The WHOIS information is similar with previous 80... IPs in the archive.
After this IP, a load of different Telecom Italia IPs have been used. One of them continued straight from where the Irish IP left from, in a move request initiated by the latter. It is fairly disruptive that another IP has initiated a second move request on the same page: [288] On talk:Social democracy, one Italian IP is answering on behalf of the Irish IP in the same section etc.
New Italian IPs with a different range seem to pop after every day or two, so can you just please check what's happening in the histories of these articles:
-- Pudeo ( talk) 19:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies( WP:SOCK)? They don't appear to be doing anything malicious from the edits linked. I don't see why it's disruptive for one user to request two different moves on the same page, and the second RM even acknowledges that they are doing so:
I apologise for making another request and I hope it's not a problem. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 21:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Huh, I think I did indeed mess up the WHOIS information in my head. Sorry for that. But @
79.52.17.197: I actually wish I could keep the same IP
how about creating an account then? --
Pudeo (
talk) 06:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
All of the IPs listed are Italian. There is no Irish IP "in the same [Talk page] section". The 80. IPs in the archive start with 80.11 and are Irish. The number of IPv4s that start with 80. is huge and do not all geolocate to the same place. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
See below.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 15:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed
Blocked and tagged.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 15:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Account started editing in late 2018, becoming more active this year. It has edited extensively in topics about Ireland, including but not limited to the IRA and Sinn Féin. There is editing interaction between FDW777 and Apollo in articles such as the Easter Rising. This post in WP:ARE might be noteworthy. Jamez42 ( talk) 15:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Is every editor who edits in the Troubles area a sockpuppet of Apollo The Logician? The "evidence", not that there is any, would appear to be making that suggestion. FDW777 ( talk) 16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Salvio giuliano: Hi! Many thanks for the soon response! I will provide further information and diffs in the following hours. Since it will take time, I would like to know if there is any sort of "deadline". Many thanks in advance! -- Jamez42 ( talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I will cover each bullet point in turn, mentioned individual diffs where appropriate.
Perhaps most glaring in the evidence is "In these, there is a distinctive feature: little to no edits between 0:00 and 6:00 UTC", wow really? You are aware that most people in Great Britain (me) and Ireland (Apollo The Logician, judging by IPs in previous invesitgations) are asleep during those hours yes?
More to follow. FDW777 ( talk) 17:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I have nothing to hide from checkuser. In fact, I will tell you what they won't due to the privacy policy. I am resident in the United Kingdom (a particular part of England if you really want to know), using Sky Broadband. Not a VPN, not a proxy, but a major internet provider. I am not in the same country as Apollo The Logician. Any similarities in editing have been explained above. That I revert multiple IPs adding "terrorist" to articles or changing Derry to Londonderry doesn't make me the same person as Apollo The Logician, any more than in makes me the same person as the other editors making similar reverts. FDW777 ( talk) 17:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Also I will address the "Like in previous cases, I've found edit summaries similar to "what the source says" bullet point. I have had a look in the archive for that specific phrase, and this salient point by @ Scolaire: leaps out - "And if saying "what the source says" in an edit summary is proof that you're a blocked editor, then we may as well get rid of WP:V altogether". When you are changing text in an article to match what the source says (oops, look what I just said) there really aren't that many ways to phrase the edit summary that don't involve using some of those words in that order (or similar ones such as "reference", which I used it two of the three diffs provided). FDW777 ( talk) 18:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
In case my post regarding my ISP is unclear, I give full permission for a checkuser to confirm the information given by me regarding my location and ISP is correct. FDW777 ( talk) 19:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Salvio giuliano: I've managed to gather several diffs. I apologize if I took too long.
Despite being a new user or having no apparent experience in talk pages, FDW777 knew how to provide diffs in just their second edit ( [416]), as well as quoting MOS:WORDS in just their third edit ( WP:TERRORIST) and MOS:IRELAND in their fourth ( WP:DERRY), suggesting experience outside the said account.
I should also mention similarities in the accounts' time cards Apollo The Logician's, which is most noticeable comparing FDW777's and ApolloCarmb's. In these, there is a distinctive feature: little to no edits between 0:00 and 6:00 UTC.
I also find interesting that FDW777 mentioned communism (or socialism) when I notified them of the sockpuppet investigation and while blanking their talk page ( "Reds under the bed"), which is another frequent topic of confirmed or suspected sockpuppets, even though I haven't even brought it until now.
Last but not least, I want to stress that I am not necesarrily pointing out necessarily at policy or guidelines violations, but edit behaviour similarities and potential block evasion, which is particularly important since the Troubles is a topic subject to active arbitration remedies. I hope all of this helps to clarify my grounds for requesting a checkuser. Best regards. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 16:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Goodposts edited first on 12 January 2019 on the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis article, less than 24 hours after the article was created, during the important controversy that is currently ongoing in the country and two weeks before confirmed sock Simon1811 started editing on 25 January ( [417]). Their first edit was directly a revert ( [418]), already writing "NPOV" as an edit summary, suggesting a single purpose and previous knowledge of Wikipedia policies outside the account. Goodposts continued editing in the article after Simon1811 was blocked on 2 February 2019 ( Editor interaction analysis as reference) Ever since, Goodposts has edited in articles about other countries in the region, such as Cuba ( [419] [420] [421] [422] [423] [424]) and Nicaragua ( [425]), usually writing about the governments alligned with Venezuela's administration in a positive light, including Maduro's, with currently the exception of Ecuador ( [426] [427] [428], whose government is opposed to the Nicolás Maduro administration. There are also similarities in sourcing, including references like Venezuelanalysis and Twitter ( [429] [430]). I think Telesur has also been included, but I can't find the diff at the moment. The edits in the Iran–United Kingdom relations article may also be noteworthy ( [431] [432] [433]). Once again, I have to point out again the similarities between Apollo The Logician's and Goodposts' time cards: little to no edits between 0:00 and 6:00 UTC. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 18:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Unrelated, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 17:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This is being split off from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sq178pv per request by Berean Hunter. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Considerable overlap between confirmed sockpuppets and 'SpaceSandwich'. The account was created in April 2020, and edits in the same way as the sockmaster and puppets: tendentious editing on content related to extreme leftwing politics. I noticed who it was when the editor made the same edits to the page as the sockpuppet Jorge1777 [434] [435] [436]. The editor is also edit-warring on the page of an obscure pseudohistorian [437] [438]. See overlap here also [439]. I think there is enough to warrant a check. The sockmaster is engaging in long-term abuse, so I'm reluctant putting more time and effort into this when multiple new accounts will eventually crop up as soon as this one gets blocked. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I am not using "sockpuppet" accounts, stop trying to censor the truth. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SpaceSandwich (
talk •
contribs) 02:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
If you are concerned with my edits, I shall stop editing the Grover Furr page. - SpaceSandwich — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceSandwich ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
SpaceSandwich appears to me to be related to other socks such as Jorge1777, having the same style and topic interests. The case is also very similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist/Archive such that all three cases might be the same sockmaster. The range Special:Contributions/31.187.0.0/21 and the IP Special:Contributions/80.111.17.237 appear to be connected, geolocating to Leinster, Ireland. Binksternet ( talk) 23:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
If you look at his contribs you see that he has interest in leftist topics, just like some other socks. Also, this account has been known to use personal attacks at people and make disruptive edits. Darubrub ( talk) 17:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same (far-)left POV and exclusive focus on authoritarian left-wing regimes, the IRA and other " Tankie" topics. I'm comparing to Jorge1777 because that one is a recently active sock with a good number of edits.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The vast majority of these "similarities" are just incredible reaches. I have used the phrase "gain a consensus" and so has the other individual? Really? Things like this show that the filer is so desperate for evidence that they have to reach to such extreme lengths for "evidence". Perhaps a "Check User" would clear my name? PailSimon ( talk) 09:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
"with both having a liking for Talk: Fine Gael." - I believe I have engaged in one single talk page discussion on said page, this hardly amounts to a "liking". Once again I would stress that I edit international politics articles, I have edited political articles related to every continent in the world. The fact that I have very tangentially edited an Irish political article is a natural consequence of that. Just as the fact that I have edited Ugandan political articles, Hong Kong political articles, Thai political articles, Myanmar political articles, Iraqi political articles (and so on goes the list) is also a natural consequence of that. PailSimon ( talk) 10:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
the UK where citizens are called Welsh, Scottish etcas an example. Regionalism and nationalities have also been consistent issues dealt with socks in the past: [479] [480] [481] [482].
Its been four days since anybody has commented so is some sort of judgement going to be made or is the lack of judgement implying that the 'evidence' has been judged as weak? PailSimon ( talk) 20:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
A checkuser request was requested before against Burrobert in 2019, which was denied due to insufficient evidence. Hopefully the following request will offer more insight into the similarities between Burrobert and Apollo, as well as other confirmed socks.
Burrobert's first edit took place on 2 May 2015. Prior to 19 May 2018, Burrobert had only made 21 edits, and after that date, started editing more actively and frequently, nine days after ApolloCarmb ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)'s block on 10 May, as well as few days after the blocks of other related IPs and open proxies. Between 2015 and 2018, in three years, merely 21 edits were done, in comparison to over 4500 edits between 2018 and 2021, in the same period of time.
It should also be mentioned that during this first period of time, the articles edited were almost exclusively about British and Australian topics: Scobie Malone (film), Honor Blackman, Samantha Stosur, Altona, Victoria, Dane Swan, Gary Lineker, Alex Salmond, Show Me the Way (Peter Frampton song), George Blake, George Galloway, Altona North, Victoria. Likewise noteworthy are two articles about mathematics: Schnirelmann density, Binary quadratic form
These early edits, like ApolloCarmb's and other socks, where largely mobile ( [484] [485] [486] [487] [488] [489] [490] [491]), and Burrobert's use of British spelling ( "encyclopaedia", "criticised" and "practised", to mention some) should also be noted. There have also been many instances where Burrobert has included "what the source says" in their edit summaries or a variant of it, a common summary used by previous socks ( [492] [493] [494] [495] [496] [497])
Since then, Burrobert has had an overlap and edited in topics ranging from Cuba ( Fidel Castro, United States embargo against Cuba, Miguel Díaz-Canel), Venezuela ( Nicolás Maduro, Crisis in Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan presidential crisis, Operation Gideon (2020)), Syria ( White Helmets (Syrian civil war), Piers Robinson, Maram Susli), British politics, namely the Labour party ( Labour Party (UK), Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn, Conservative Party (UK), Jeremy Corbyn, Gerry Adams, Clement Attlee, Chris Williamson (politician), Alex Salmond), the Soviet Union or Russia ( Gulag, Walter Duranty, Unit 29155), to overall the autocratic left and mathematics, including the Uyghur genocide, and the Bertrand Russell and Bertrand Russell's political views articles, nearly always with an Anti-American/Anti-Western or pro-left wing POV. All of the named articles have an overlap with at least one confirmed sock, and as such the topic overlap is not limited to them: as recently as 18 July, Burrobert has edited in the Mick Wallace and Clare Daly articles, both Irish politicians and Members of the European Parliament, as well as The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL, the far-left political group of the body. Said overlap is also not always limited to a single account: in the case of the White Helmets articles, at least three other confirmed socks have edited in it ( [498] Valkyrie Cain ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), ApolloCarmb, [499] [500] Shinnerfeiner ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)).
While some articles are high profile, others such as Shaoquett Moselmane, Bertrand Russell's political views (a page moved by Apollo and where both him and related proxies have edited in) and Piers Robinson are not so much. The few amount of edits among some of the socks, as well as the amount of socks where there is overlap, should also be taken into account.
Regardless, besides the shared edits in articles or topic themselves, I'll also show some of the content similarities:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I haven’t looked through all the examples provided above. I presume they show that I have an interest in subjects in common with a number of other editors, including the editor who raised the issue. If my editing style is similar to that of other editors it may show that we are all trying to keep to the same community rules and possibly all look at the subjects from the same angle. The articles that I have spent most time on are as follows (it might be worth seeing if any of the other editors mentioned have also edited these articles):
Other points:
Burrobert ( talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)