Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sherlock4000

Sherlock4000 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
26 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I've left a warning for the account about edit warring while logged out. Mike V • Talk 22:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply
30 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

In October, Sherlock4000 was given a final warning for editing whilst logged out, to avoid scrutiny.

Now the same IP has come back and started making the same edits...

98.166.157.157 overlaps on a remarkable 61 articles, including some extremely obscure articles created by Sherlock4000, such as Argentine general election, March 1973; Argentine general election, September 1973, Beatriz Rojkés de Alperovich; Estela Barnes de Carlotto; Libertador Building; and so on.

This IP address has long been used to make the same reverts as Sherlock4000 in edit wars, for instance [3] and [4]. bobrayner ( talk) 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, as Bob already knows I was not edit-warring while logged out, since to do that I would have had to been using BOTH an ip address AND a log on while working on the same series of edits. That someone once thought it happened -without looking closely at the edits in question ( [5])- doesn't mean it was actually so. Look closely and you'll see my logon edit and my ip edits were six weeks apart, and that I NEVER used both at the same time or even close. Bob knows this very well.
What IS the case here is this user has pushing his POV on Argentine-related articles since at least May 2012 - adding nothing constructive or fact-based, but instead copy-pasting his pet op-eds from 2012 and making blanket deletions of others' work, even changes to grammar and such ( here, here, here, here, and here). Others have noticed it too: [6] [7]. Unable to force the POV-pushing to stand, I'm not surprised he'd try this - again.
And Bob, thanks for not notifying me. I see you have a history of doing these kinds of things without properly notifying those involved, as Enoch4Seth can attest as well.
Thanks. Sherlock4000 ( talk) 21:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC) reply
What a shame; it seems that Sherlock4000 didn't read this warning by the last closing admin:

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you.

After getting that warning, Sherlock4000 continued to stalk me to other pages and revert my edits whilst logged out. The accusations that I'm the biased one aren't a defence against charges of abusing IPs, of course, but other editors feel the problem's with Sherlock4000's edits. Nonetheless, many articles now reflect Sherlock4000's position rather than the consensus and the reliable sources, because Sherlock4000 and IPs always revert, over and over again. bobrayner ( talk) 21:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The "warning" Bob likes to refer to is hardly a good argument, since the edits he was referring to [ clearly show otherwise. And are we accusing others of your own missteps, Bob? Because that's pretty much what you've been doing in a number of Argentine-related articles since May of 2012. Pushing blatant op eds, deleting reliably-sourced updates when they don't suit you, adding innuendo from blogs and deleting reliably-sourced work with no consensus or explanation (and no, "Not an improvement" doesn't count). These other editors you mention as "having problems" with me have some of the same tendencies - especialy DaltonCastle, who basically feels that's he's free to violate BLP and RS guidelines at will, often starting entries that are little more than attack pages sourced with blogs.
If you don't like the way a lot of these artice read, it seems to be because the facts don't fit your pet op eds. Since you know that press articles and report trump op-eds and blogs as aceptable sources, you resort to this. It's hardly a secret that many sockpuppet reports are filed merely to shut down other editors. This is especialy so with editors who rely most heavily on things like op eds, blogs, rumors, and innuendo, since blocking editors tha object to them is often the only way POV pushers can have the last word - all the more so if the subject at hand is unfamiliar to most others.
Funny that he mentions stalking, since Bob frequently reverts my work and often within hours. I've edited Nationalization of oil supplies numerous times and in fact wrote the entry on the Renationalization of YPF, so it's hardly unusual of me to read those pages and edit them from time to time. Since Bobrayner frequently reverts my work and often within hours, and since I don't devote my time to soapboxing against others with blogs and op eds (like he does), I should be the one calling him out on that. Falsely accusing others of sockpuppetry just adds another layer to his history of abusive editing on Argentine topics and those on the oil sector.
Regards, Sherlock4000 ( talk) 02:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply


Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I've blocked the IP and the user for 1 week each. The evidence presented makes its clear it's the user editing while logged out. The edits to National Institute of Statistics and Census of Argentina aren't permitted under the sockpuppetry policy, as users may not log out to further an edit war. I would suggest that both of you find a way to interact peacefully or I may recommend an interaction ban at the administrators' noticeboard. Mike V • Talk 21:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply


13 December 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Sherlock4000's preferred IP address has just been blocked for sockpuppetry; so 2600:1003:b12d:c62b:24f4:719d:4b30:eb8e and 2600:1003:b11c:700c:9c9e:7854:2372:a9ee appear to make the same edits. Compare diffs: [8] [9] [10] [11] bobrayner ( talk) 21:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • It looks like since the account and IP were blocked, the user moved to a wireless carrier. I've upped the master account's block to a month, semi-protected the page for 2 weeks, and gave a 1 week anon only block for 2600:1003:b100::/42. Mike V • Talk 21:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
24 December 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

After Sherlock4000's latest block for sockpuppetry was increased to a month, another IP appeared to push the same points. [12] [13] bobrayner ( talk) 12:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply

However, it might be best if a different admin, rather than Mike V, acts on this one; to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: Several comments, Bobrayner. First, please sign your posts. Second, Mike V is not WP:INVOLVED at all. Taking administrative action against a user does not make an admin involved. Third, please compare the IP's edits to the master's rather than just presenting diffs of the IP. Finally, the IP is a bit stale now. If I were persuaded that this is another case of block evasion, I would be more inclined to increase the master's block duration, possibly to indefinite. I would welcome Mike's comments, as he is more familiar with this case than I am.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • The IP geolocates to a different country and there doesn't seem to be any readily visible signs of spoofing. (It's listed on a possible spam blacklist, but nothing about proxies, TOR, and the such) Also, the IP's behavior is different. Instead of wholesale removal, it's only trying to change a few words. I'm not really confident that it's the same person. Mike V • Talk 21:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
17 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Greetings! I am requesting an inquiry into potential sock-puppetry. I understand it is a possibility these suspicions are incorrect, but I believe they at east merit an inquiry at the least. Sherlock4000 has long been involved in Argentine related pages. I have long been involved in political corruption related pages. We therefore have edit conflicts over a number of articles. No harm there, I know what Wikipedia is.

But what alarms me is that this user interacts in almost no collaboration on the talk pages, never attempts to reach compromises that I have offered on several occasions, is very accusatory towards me, removes reliably sourced content, and is generally disruptive. Also of interest is the general pattern that initially perked my suspicions: one of these suspected socks would make revisions to a page. Then when I, or another user, would revert, Sherlock comes in making the same changes, as if its planned. It doesnt take a stretch of the imagination to think a user dedicated to Argentine pages would do anything to protect the reputation of Argentine officials involved in corruption by enacting a sock-puppetry campaign.

Here

Gustavo Ferraro

IP:98.166.157.157

IP100.2.75.216

Sherlock

Jorge Brito

Superagente

Danielseo

Violeta Pobre

Sherlock

Jorge Brito Talk page

Superagente

Danielseo

This edit I believe in particular cements the connection between Superagente and Danielseo

Arankewende

Sherlock

Carlos Zannini

Kynigosgnosis

Wprag

Sherlock

This edit was particularly suspicious. It appears as though the Wprag sock was used to justify Sherlock's removal. Also important to note is the Wprag tried to discredit the sources used for that section. However, if one read the article ( http://www.lavoz.com.ar/politica/piden-investigar-al-segundo-de-carlos-zannini) they would find it supports the content.


This is also not the first investigation into this user's conduct: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive.

I hope this investigation clears everything up. If there is sock puppetry abuse here I hope justice is promptly brought. If it shows there is no violation then there is no harm done. Thank you for your consideration. DaltonCastle ( talk) 05:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Considering Sherlock4000's habit of making wild accusations against ideological opponents (the rant below is not new), and considering Sherlock4000's constant accusations that other editors are using socks, and considering the years of revert-stalking, and considering the previous escalating blocks for sockpuppetry, I trust that the next block will be sufficiently long to give other editors time to repair Sherlock4000's damage. bobrayner ( talk) 18:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Well I thought you'd show up sooner or later, Bob. Hardly a surprise, since I've been practically the only editor curbing your POV op-ed pushing on WP Argentina.
Here we have someone who's been doing nothing on WP Argentina other than cherry-picking malicious and highly biased op-eds (often years old), which he presents as unvarnished fact in Wikipedia voice. Bob's been doing this for 3 years now against a variety of Argentine-related articles. This one for example: [14], which he deleted for no other reason than because it was a positive development ("synthesis" he called it), and this one especially. I mean, there you have him repeatedly posting 3-year-old, anonymous op eds written in crass POV tone predicting something that did not happen (on the contrary, if you look at the many positive developments at YPF since its renationalization) - but which he insisted on tacking on the lead for years!
It's worth pointing out as well that he has a habit of blanking entire pages without reason or consensus, taking advantage of the editor's absence and with very vague edit summaries to evade detection ("cleaning up", what "the sources" say, etc.). Juriaan, btw, is someone he had blocked merely for accusing him of being paid to edit against certain subjects - a punishment I felt was quite harsh considering Juriaan's caliber as a contributor.
These two editors - and a few possible sockpuppets of one or both of them ( [15], [16], [17], [18]) - only wander into WP Argentina to push vulture fund POV in articles that touch on said dispute, slander people using anonymous gossip, and generally slant articles to push one-sided negative bias and omit mention of positive developments (as shown above and in my edit below). I take care to leave as much of DaltonCastle's edits as I can (as in the case of Carlos Zannini); but hearsay and malicious edits shouldn't stand.
The record makes it clear that I've not been "sock-puppeting" - I haven't used the 98.166 IP at all since March (and never in an edit dispute, since any coincidences between my Sherlock account and the IP are at least six weeks -usually six months- apart).
I don't want to interact with these two any more than I have to - and probably wouldn't at all if they weren't smearing Argentine-related articles so constantly.
Thank You. Sherlock4000 ( talk) 19:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
See what I said about "wild accusations against ideological opponents"? The sooner Sherlock4000's socking and POV-pushing are cut off, the better. I note that when these content problems were brought up at a noticeboard, Sherlock4000 refused to cooperate with the consensus there, and just kept on reverting and accusing opponents of being evil in various ways.
As an aside, the Commodity (Marxism) article was an unrelated pov-fork by an editor who has since been indef'd; I'm trying to clean up some of the mess that Jurriaan left. I can understand Sherlock4000's sympathy for Jurriaan, who felt that ideological opponents must be CIA stooges, but that doesn't justify automatically reverting all my edits regardless of whether they're even related to Argentina. I tire of this harassment. bobrayner ( talk) 19:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
@ Bbb23:
Thank you for looking into this accusation. The fact is, I've dealing with this user for some time now, since he insists on adding malicious edits to anyone that has or may have any role in the Cristina Kirchner administration (Argentina) and those fighting vulture fund claims for 1600% payouts (Paul Singer's mouthpiece ATFA buys frequent ads and employs numerous internet trolls, though I realize I can't prove this DaltonCastle character is a paid editor). This is just his effort to have me banned; I haven't "sock-puppeted" and the record shows it.
And thank you for pinging me, since DaltonCastle took care not to notify me of this ban attempt.
The IP is question had been used in one of these articles ( Gustavo Ferraro) was last used six months ago. I was once blocked for the same charge, since I was careless about logging on back then - but over edits that happened six weeks apart, from September 7 to October 22 (thus with no effort to influence an edit dispute, which as you know are rapid-fire in nature). The secondary log-on is one I occasionally use on non-Argentine related subjects only (my primary focus is on WP Argentina), and it's never interacted with DaltonCastle at all.
DaltonCastle has already been reported by SimpleStitch for malicious/POV editing here and here, and of edit-warring by HughD (recently blocked for doing so on Americans for Prosperity) and canvassing besides ( [19], [20]).
One of his recent edits was this on Eduardo Elsztain: Elsztain himself has been depicted as a corrupt “Kirchnerista” and a member of the “Argentinian Jewish mafia” (!). I might add that this was put there without even a token source and, for maximum effect, placed in the last sentence in the lead. The tone, as you can imagine, is typical of nearly all of his edits on Argentine-related subjects.
Almost all his edits follow the same pattern: smear the subject with "one source claims" allegations that have no basis at all (made all the easier by Argentina's repeal of criminal libel and slander if presented "in the context of public interest" [21] (which has been twisted to mean almost anything pertaining to public officials or even those in the private sector, if they're famous enough). While this repeal earned Argentina plaudits from Human Rights advocates, it has unfortunately set the stage for a virtual food fight of allegations against public persons in Argentina. DaltonCastle would like to continue posting libellous edits against Argentine topics (and possibly others) with no interference from me or anyone else.
That's what this is about. Not my using a secondary account for non-Argentine edits (which is allowed) or having failed to log on six months earlier.
All the Best, Sherlock4000 ( talk) 15:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • 98.166.157.157 hardblocked one year. Sherlock evaded his block in December with Nononsense and the other accounts were used to stalk and edit war (except the two that are unrelated). Tagging and closing.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

20 July 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Greetings again! I am wondering if someone can inquire into this. I suspect User:Tuquoquefili to be Sherlock4000 evading a block. ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive) This user began editing on June 26, 2015. Sherlock was blocked on Jun 17, 2015.

Sherlock was confirmed to have been using several sock on several pages, Brito included. Hope this can be resolved in a timely fashion. DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Perhaps @ Bbb23: or @ Berean Hunter: might have some input.


Adding a new user. Since this group of socks is an admitted PR agency for Argentine officials, I think this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Route_of_the_K-Money&diff=prev&oldid=674228275) is worthy of a check. DaltonCastle ( talk) 01:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The reply ping to me did not work. I don't know if the one to Bbb23 worked or not. Yunshui may be interested in this since he recently ran CU to unblock one editor. Given this admission by the accused that they are a PR agent, I would suggest that you file this at the COI noticeboard asking for assistance there and make sure to mention that many of the sources are in Spanish and need verification checked. Without having seen the above, I had posted my reply to Yunshui this morning. I would advance the notion that one set of PR/SEO guys meatpuppeting may have just been replaced by the new editor and his firm. Had he not posted his response on the talk page, I would have been blocking as a meatpuppet. I'm suggesting COIN so that we make sure that there aren't BLP issues with that article and I believe it will need folks that are fluent in Spanish to help.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The ping to me did not work because it wasn't signed.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Interesting. Sorry about the ping. Nonetheless, could we run a checkuser? It seems very possible that these are all the same guys. If they have enough of a financial stake at risk here this behaviour would make sense. Since this is someone who admits to be working for a PR firm, openly admitting they have been paid by Macro Bank, and we have seen similar disruptive edits on this and related pages by now-blocked users, can we at least suspect that this PR agency is attempting to continue their work? DaltonCastle ( talk) 00:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Tuquoquefili is a  Confirmed sock of the Superagente86/Danielseo451/Vaquillonhilton group of socks. Yunshui  雲 水 08:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

26 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


This single purpose editor follows the same pattern of Sherlock's long term abuse on Wikipedia of removing reliably sourced content. Almost certainly Sherlock circumventing their block. The master, Sherlock, was found to linked to User:Tuquoquefili. Tuquoquefili has made the following admission:

I have been employed at Hormigas Group where I work on a variety of clients, maily from Latin America. I use my Wikipedia account in a professional and personal capacity to add factual information to client pages, only with supporting third party news sources. My task is to guarantee a well-sourced article of clients, with reliable information.

These users have some paid interest with elements of the Argentine government.

Jose Luis Manzano

DaltonCastle ( talk) 20:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 20:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Technically, there's not enough to match them with any previous accounts. It's a mix-and-match of location and other technical details, but none of them is in alignment. The best I can do based on the data is  Inconclusive, which I understand is not particularly helpful.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • I've blocked AlfredoSande. However, the account hasn't been used abusively, so I don't think a block for Viperx666 is needed yet. (Assuming a bit of good faith here.) I don't think there's enough evidence to connect Viperx666 to Sherlock4000, so I'm taking no action in that regard. Mike V • Talk 01:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply

28 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Same pattern as the previous socks and self-declared PR agency (See here), attempting to remove sourced content from the Brito page and drag my name through the mud.

On Brito's page edits by ClufoWatson are almost the same..

as edits made by previously confirmed socks:

User then canvassed on Argentina project page for help, misrepresenting facts:

Then tried to drag my name through mud on COI noticeboard when they are almost certainly Sherlock navigating around block. Cant stress enough that I write about corruption topics often:

Behavioural evidence almost perfectly matches previously proven sock-puppets and I am requesting further administrative review. In addition, since these pages are under continuous alterations by single-purpose users after a major editor was blocked for sock-puppetry and conflict of interest on these pages, I am also requesting these pages be protected. DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I'm not sure if this is Sherlock but it is certainly a meatpuppet and likely paid. Indeffing and closing.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • For the record,  Confirmed. Archiving. Courcelles ( talk) 00:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply


05 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


I am again requesting someone look into the activities of another user. I do not, and will not, advocate an opinion that anyone editing Argentine related pages from a POV in favor of the government is a sock or has a paid interest - BUT, this user follows much of the same patterns as Sherlock4000, who WAS blocked for long term account abuse and a major, on-going conflict of interest. SegataSanshiro1 (who I will call Segata for short) is still a newer user, has only been active on Argentine pages, edited several of the same pages as Sherlock, follows the same patterns, and makes accusatory claims against those they've disagreed with. Sherlock has been found to have numerous socks and meatpuppets so it is not a totally far-fetched idea at all that Segata is one and the same. If Segata is innocent then they have nothing to hide. But this kind of behavior is disruptive and my suspicions are not without merit.

This user states their interest is in Argentine railroads. Yet they have made some considerable edits to Economy of Argentina, Paul Singer (businessman), and now Argentine former transport minister Ricardo Jaime. Anyone familiar with former Sherlock4000 SPIs will know about the pages he and his socks had been active on and their disclosed paid interest.

Ricardo Jaime. New behavior for Segata, although Sherlock was interested in pages of politicians:

Paul Singer. Edits antagonistic towards bond-holders. On more than one occasion, Sherlock called me a "Vulture fund troll" for totally unrelated edits:


Distressed securities fund:


Economy of Argentina:

Other, mainly accusatory tone and use of term "trolling" for anyone in disagreement:

Let me know what more you all need. I hope we can get to the bottom of this promptly. Thank you for your time. DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Hi DaltonCastle, I would appreciate at least some basic courtesy in letting me know that you have opened such an investigation. I think all me and this "sockmaster" shared in common disdain for editors trying to push a free-market POV on Wikipedia and those who are likely financed by market interests. Those pages you listed are some I'm keeping an eye on since they have in the past been heavily edited by editors I suspect have financial motives for their edits. It drives me livid to see this kind of behaviour to say the least, but I only pursue amending it on a couple of articles since I would prefer to focus on more productive things. Preventing this sort of systemic bias and little Gordon Gekko wannabes from running riot is something I intend to continue doing, but it is only a secondary interest.
My interest in Ricardo Jaime was limited to him having been Transport secretary and I'm interested in Argentine transport articles, in particular the railways. I have also edited articles on Florencio Randazzo (Jaime's successor after Transport was merged with Interior) and the Ministry of the Interior and Transport, but only to a limited degree like with the Jaime article. I thought the article was very well researched and very accurate, the way it was portrayed appeared to be intentionally inflammatory and written to discredit political leaders rather than deal with the subject matter, so I tagged it. I agree with many of the opinions (on a personal level) you put forward in the article, but I'm sure even you can see it is a fairly loaded article which on the surface appears to have ulterior motives or just lacks much of a broad understanding of Argentina, its culture or history. I hope you didn't take the tagging of the article personally since it was an article you created, and I hope you can continue to improve it but I have no interest in editing it again unless he returns to politics (very doubtful).
The accusations of being a "government stooge" or the like are quite absurd and I take them quite personally since it couldn't be much further from the truth. Even with the brief interactions I have with the transport articles, I write about the respective transport projects of both the national government and the government of Buenos Aires (as well as other provincial governments) who are in direct opposition. Again, I think if you had a more significant cultural and political knowledge about Argentina then you could perhaps understand that having a severe dislike for people like Paul Singer isn't synonymous with having a pro-government position - there's approximately 42 million people in Argentina who share those views so its not exactly coincidental that myself and this other user share them. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 00:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Didnt mean to get personal. I was just curious. No harm was intended and no harm was done. DaltonCastle ( talk) 19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
To be clear I have no issue with tagging the article, or even someone improving it, at all. Its just that Sherlock4000 had made similar edits in the past on similar pages. DaltonCastle ( talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Sure, normally I would leave things be for pages which don't really interest me but sometimes when I see serious problems and I feel like making some quick fixes then I do. I do find it somewhat irritating in cases like this though where editors appear to spend a disproportionate amount of time in attempting to justify their preconceptions about certain countries or political systems when, for example, the page Corruption in the United Kingdom does not exist. Again, just because I am easily irritated by this does not mean I am another person. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 22:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • SegataSanshiro1 ( talk · contribs · count) is between Red X Unrelated and  Inconclusive. Frankly, I'm a bit confused when I trace the history of this case from its inception to the present, not just my own direct involvement, but that of other CheckUsers. I'm reluctant to say what confuses me, so I'll leave it at that.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Bbb23 I moved very recently to somewhere I'd much rather be :) - I hope that addresses your confusion, though personally I have no idea how anyone could find such a decision confusing. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 00:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ SegataSanshiro1: No, not completely. Where were you, and where are you now? You don't have to be specific. The country will do.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
UK --> Argentina - I thought I addressed that above. I'm curious as to what you're referring to now. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 00:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't see the countries addressed above, but no matter, thanks for answering the question.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, googling my own IP seems to suggest I'm in the country I think I am and that I'm not losing my mind... The fact that neither country comes up confuses me more than it does you. I'm quite curious what countries you're getting and why, but I guess that's not particularly relevant here. If you wish to disclose then I'd be happy to know, but otherwise I'm content with this being left at me not being the person DaltonCastle has accused me of being. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 01:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

15 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

@ Bbb23: @ Berean Hunter:

New, single-purpose user, making the exact same edit as the previously found socks on Jorge Horacio Brito's page.

Edit by HungryThai:

Edits by previous Socks:

On the talk page they make the exact same arguments as the previous socks:

There is persistent vandalism and sock-puppetry on this page that merits a more long-term page protection. The behavioral evidence of this new user looks like a WP:DUCK. Checkuser data may reveal more but this appears to almost certainly be the PR firm at work that openly disclosed its interest on this page. DaltonCastle ( talk) 22:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 22:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

31 December 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Considering the previous investigations, wherein the socks admitted to being paid advocates on behalf of the Argentine government, this one should be pretty simple.

New user admits to working for a PR firm. They are pushing the same edits against our consensus as previous socks. DaltonCastle ( talk) 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I'm just going to go ahead and block this duckling. Drmies ( talk) 19:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Puppet blocked. Nothing more to do. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 12:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

05 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Three suspected accounts have all made identical edits in the past month.

Suspected sock master was discovered to be a professional PR entity making edits on behalf of Argentine public figures.

Instead of approaching the subject on the talk page they are following the behavior of the previously blocked accounts. Would like to see if someone can take a look at this. DaltonCastle ( talk) 22:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 22:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive&oldid=1076818824"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sherlock4000

Sherlock4000 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
26 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I've left a warning for the account about edit warring while logged out. Mike V • Talk 22:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply
30 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

In October, Sherlock4000 was given a final warning for editing whilst logged out, to avoid scrutiny.

Now the same IP has come back and started making the same edits...

98.166.157.157 overlaps on a remarkable 61 articles, including some extremely obscure articles created by Sherlock4000, such as Argentine general election, March 1973; Argentine general election, September 1973, Beatriz Rojkés de Alperovich; Estela Barnes de Carlotto; Libertador Building; and so on.

This IP address has long been used to make the same reverts as Sherlock4000 in edit wars, for instance [3] and [4]. bobrayner ( talk) 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, as Bob already knows I was not edit-warring while logged out, since to do that I would have had to been using BOTH an ip address AND a log on while working on the same series of edits. That someone once thought it happened -without looking closely at the edits in question ( [5])- doesn't mean it was actually so. Look closely and you'll see my logon edit and my ip edits were six weeks apart, and that I NEVER used both at the same time or even close. Bob knows this very well.
What IS the case here is this user has pushing his POV on Argentine-related articles since at least May 2012 - adding nothing constructive or fact-based, but instead copy-pasting his pet op-eds from 2012 and making blanket deletions of others' work, even changes to grammar and such ( here, here, here, here, and here). Others have noticed it too: [6] [7]. Unable to force the POV-pushing to stand, I'm not surprised he'd try this - again.
And Bob, thanks for not notifying me. I see you have a history of doing these kinds of things without properly notifying those involved, as Enoch4Seth can attest as well.
Thanks. Sherlock4000 ( talk) 21:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC) reply
What a shame; it seems that Sherlock4000 didn't read this warning by the last closing admin:

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you.

After getting that warning, Sherlock4000 continued to stalk me to other pages and revert my edits whilst logged out. The accusations that I'm the biased one aren't a defence against charges of abusing IPs, of course, but other editors feel the problem's with Sherlock4000's edits. Nonetheless, many articles now reflect Sherlock4000's position rather than the consensus and the reliable sources, because Sherlock4000 and IPs always revert, over and over again. bobrayner ( talk) 21:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The "warning" Bob likes to refer to is hardly a good argument, since the edits he was referring to [ clearly show otherwise. And are we accusing others of your own missteps, Bob? Because that's pretty much what you've been doing in a number of Argentine-related articles since May of 2012. Pushing blatant op eds, deleting reliably-sourced updates when they don't suit you, adding innuendo from blogs and deleting reliably-sourced work with no consensus or explanation (and no, "Not an improvement" doesn't count). These other editors you mention as "having problems" with me have some of the same tendencies - especialy DaltonCastle, who basically feels that's he's free to violate BLP and RS guidelines at will, often starting entries that are little more than attack pages sourced with blogs.
If you don't like the way a lot of these artice read, it seems to be because the facts don't fit your pet op eds. Since you know that press articles and report trump op-eds and blogs as aceptable sources, you resort to this. It's hardly a secret that many sockpuppet reports are filed merely to shut down other editors. This is especialy so with editors who rely most heavily on things like op eds, blogs, rumors, and innuendo, since blocking editors tha object to them is often the only way POV pushers can have the last word - all the more so if the subject at hand is unfamiliar to most others.
Funny that he mentions stalking, since Bob frequently reverts my work and often within hours. I've edited Nationalization of oil supplies numerous times and in fact wrote the entry on the Renationalization of YPF, so it's hardly unusual of me to read those pages and edit them from time to time. Since Bobrayner frequently reverts my work and often within hours, and since I don't devote my time to soapboxing against others with blogs and op eds (like he does), I should be the one calling him out on that. Falsely accusing others of sockpuppetry just adds another layer to his history of abusive editing on Argentine topics and those on the oil sector.
Regards, Sherlock4000 ( talk) 02:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC) reply


Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I've blocked the IP and the user for 1 week each. The evidence presented makes its clear it's the user editing while logged out. The edits to National Institute of Statistics and Census of Argentina aren't permitted under the sockpuppetry policy, as users may not log out to further an edit war. I would suggest that both of you find a way to interact peacefully or I may recommend an interaction ban at the administrators' noticeboard. Mike V • Talk 21:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply


13 December 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Sherlock4000's preferred IP address has just been blocked for sockpuppetry; so 2600:1003:b12d:c62b:24f4:719d:4b30:eb8e and 2600:1003:b11c:700c:9c9e:7854:2372:a9ee appear to make the same edits. Compare diffs: [8] [9] [10] [11] bobrayner ( talk) 21:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • It looks like since the account and IP were blocked, the user moved to a wireless carrier. I've upped the master account's block to a month, semi-protected the page for 2 weeks, and gave a 1 week anon only block for 2600:1003:b100::/42. Mike V • Talk 21:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply
24 December 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

After Sherlock4000's latest block for sockpuppetry was increased to a month, another IP appeared to push the same points. [12] [13] bobrayner ( talk) 12:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply

However, it might be best if a different admin, rather than Mike V, acts on this one; to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: Several comments, Bobrayner. First, please sign your posts. Second, Mike V is not WP:INVOLVED at all. Taking administrative action against a user does not make an admin involved. Third, please compare the IP's edits to the master's rather than just presenting diffs of the IP. Finally, the IP is a bit stale now. If I were persuaded that this is another case of block evasion, I would be more inclined to increase the master's block duration, possibly to indefinite. I would welcome Mike's comments, as he is more familiar with this case than I am.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

  • The IP geolocates to a different country and there doesn't seem to be any readily visible signs of spoofing. (It's listed on a possible spam blacklist, but nothing about proxies, TOR, and the such) Also, the IP's behavior is different. Instead of wholesale removal, it's only trying to change a few words. I'm not really confident that it's the same person. Mike V • Talk 21:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply
17 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Greetings! I am requesting an inquiry into potential sock-puppetry. I understand it is a possibility these suspicions are incorrect, but I believe they at east merit an inquiry at the least. Sherlock4000 has long been involved in Argentine related pages. I have long been involved in political corruption related pages. We therefore have edit conflicts over a number of articles. No harm there, I know what Wikipedia is.

But what alarms me is that this user interacts in almost no collaboration on the talk pages, never attempts to reach compromises that I have offered on several occasions, is very accusatory towards me, removes reliably sourced content, and is generally disruptive. Also of interest is the general pattern that initially perked my suspicions: one of these suspected socks would make revisions to a page. Then when I, or another user, would revert, Sherlock comes in making the same changes, as if its planned. It doesnt take a stretch of the imagination to think a user dedicated to Argentine pages would do anything to protect the reputation of Argentine officials involved in corruption by enacting a sock-puppetry campaign.

Here

Gustavo Ferraro

IP:98.166.157.157

IP100.2.75.216

Sherlock

Jorge Brito

Superagente

Danielseo

Violeta Pobre

Sherlock

Jorge Brito Talk page

Superagente

Danielseo

This edit I believe in particular cements the connection between Superagente and Danielseo

Arankewende

Sherlock

Carlos Zannini

Kynigosgnosis

Wprag

Sherlock

This edit was particularly suspicious. It appears as though the Wprag sock was used to justify Sherlock's removal. Also important to note is the Wprag tried to discredit the sources used for that section. However, if one read the article ( http://www.lavoz.com.ar/politica/piden-investigar-al-segundo-de-carlos-zannini) they would find it supports the content.


This is also not the first investigation into this user's conduct: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive.

I hope this investigation clears everything up. If there is sock puppetry abuse here I hope justice is promptly brought. If it shows there is no violation then there is no harm done. Thank you for your consideration. DaltonCastle ( talk) 05:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Considering Sherlock4000's habit of making wild accusations against ideological opponents (the rant below is not new), and considering Sherlock4000's constant accusations that other editors are using socks, and considering the years of revert-stalking, and considering the previous escalating blocks for sockpuppetry, I trust that the next block will be sufficiently long to give other editors time to repair Sherlock4000's damage. bobrayner ( talk) 18:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Well I thought you'd show up sooner or later, Bob. Hardly a surprise, since I've been practically the only editor curbing your POV op-ed pushing on WP Argentina.
Here we have someone who's been doing nothing on WP Argentina other than cherry-picking malicious and highly biased op-eds (often years old), which he presents as unvarnished fact in Wikipedia voice. Bob's been doing this for 3 years now against a variety of Argentine-related articles. This one for example: [14], which he deleted for no other reason than because it was a positive development ("synthesis" he called it), and this one especially. I mean, there you have him repeatedly posting 3-year-old, anonymous op eds written in crass POV tone predicting something that did not happen (on the contrary, if you look at the many positive developments at YPF since its renationalization) - but which he insisted on tacking on the lead for years!
It's worth pointing out as well that he has a habit of blanking entire pages without reason or consensus, taking advantage of the editor's absence and with very vague edit summaries to evade detection ("cleaning up", what "the sources" say, etc.). Juriaan, btw, is someone he had blocked merely for accusing him of being paid to edit against certain subjects - a punishment I felt was quite harsh considering Juriaan's caliber as a contributor.
These two editors - and a few possible sockpuppets of one or both of them ( [15], [16], [17], [18]) - only wander into WP Argentina to push vulture fund POV in articles that touch on said dispute, slander people using anonymous gossip, and generally slant articles to push one-sided negative bias and omit mention of positive developments (as shown above and in my edit below). I take care to leave as much of DaltonCastle's edits as I can (as in the case of Carlos Zannini); but hearsay and malicious edits shouldn't stand.
The record makes it clear that I've not been "sock-puppeting" - I haven't used the 98.166 IP at all since March (and never in an edit dispute, since any coincidences between my Sherlock account and the IP are at least six weeks -usually six months- apart).
I don't want to interact with these two any more than I have to - and probably wouldn't at all if they weren't smearing Argentine-related articles so constantly.
Thank You. Sherlock4000 ( talk) 19:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
See what I said about "wild accusations against ideological opponents"? The sooner Sherlock4000's socking and POV-pushing are cut off, the better. I note that when these content problems were brought up at a noticeboard, Sherlock4000 refused to cooperate with the consensus there, and just kept on reverting and accusing opponents of being evil in various ways.
As an aside, the Commodity (Marxism) article was an unrelated pov-fork by an editor who has since been indef'd; I'm trying to clean up some of the mess that Jurriaan left. I can understand Sherlock4000's sympathy for Jurriaan, who felt that ideological opponents must be CIA stooges, but that doesn't justify automatically reverting all my edits regardless of whether they're even related to Argentina. I tire of this harassment. bobrayner ( talk) 19:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
@ Bbb23:
Thank you for looking into this accusation. The fact is, I've dealing with this user for some time now, since he insists on adding malicious edits to anyone that has or may have any role in the Cristina Kirchner administration (Argentina) and those fighting vulture fund claims for 1600% payouts (Paul Singer's mouthpiece ATFA buys frequent ads and employs numerous internet trolls, though I realize I can't prove this DaltonCastle character is a paid editor). This is just his effort to have me banned; I haven't "sock-puppeted" and the record shows it.
And thank you for pinging me, since DaltonCastle took care not to notify me of this ban attempt.
The IP is question had been used in one of these articles ( Gustavo Ferraro) was last used six months ago. I was once blocked for the same charge, since I was careless about logging on back then - but over edits that happened six weeks apart, from September 7 to October 22 (thus with no effort to influence an edit dispute, which as you know are rapid-fire in nature). The secondary log-on is one I occasionally use on non-Argentine related subjects only (my primary focus is on WP Argentina), and it's never interacted with DaltonCastle at all.
DaltonCastle has already been reported by SimpleStitch for malicious/POV editing here and here, and of edit-warring by HughD (recently blocked for doing so on Americans for Prosperity) and canvassing besides ( [19], [20]).
One of his recent edits was this on Eduardo Elsztain: Elsztain himself has been depicted as a corrupt “Kirchnerista” and a member of the “Argentinian Jewish mafia” (!). I might add that this was put there without even a token source and, for maximum effect, placed in the last sentence in the lead. The tone, as you can imagine, is typical of nearly all of his edits on Argentine-related subjects.
Almost all his edits follow the same pattern: smear the subject with "one source claims" allegations that have no basis at all (made all the easier by Argentina's repeal of criminal libel and slander if presented "in the context of public interest" [21] (which has been twisted to mean almost anything pertaining to public officials or even those in the private sector, if they're famous enough). While this repeal earned Argentina plaudits from Human Rights advocates, it has unfortunately set the stage for a virtual food fight of allegations against public persons in Argentina. DaltonCastle would like to continue posting libellous edits against Argentine topics (and possibly others) with no interference from me or anyone else.
That's what this is about. Not my using a secondary account for non-Argentine edits (which is allowed) or having failed to log on six months earlier.
All the Best, Sherlock4000 ( talk) 15:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • 98.166.157.157 hardblocked one year. Sherlock evaded his block in December with Nononsense and the other accounts were used to stalk and edit war (except the two that are unrelated). Tagging and closing.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

20 July 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Greetings again! I am wondering if someone can inquire into this. I suspect User:Tuquoquefili to be Sherlock4000 evading a block. ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive) This user began editing on June 26, 2015. Sherlock was blocked on Jun 17, 2015.

Sherlock was confirmed to have been using several sock on several pages, Brito included. Hope this can be resolved in a timely fashion. DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Perhaps @ Bbb23: or @ Berean Hunter: might have some input.


Adding a new user. Since this group of socks is an admitted PR agency for Argentine officials, I think this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Route_of_the_K-Money&diff=prev&oldid=674228275) is worthy of a check. DaltonCastle ( talk) 01:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The reply ping to me did not work. I don't know if the one to Bbb23 worked or not. Yunshui may be interested in this since he recently ran CU to unblock one editor. Given this admission by the accused that they are a PR agent, I would suggest that you file this at the COI noticeboard asking for assistance there and make sure to mention that many of the sources are in Spanish and need verification checked. Without having seen the above, I had posted my reply to Yunshui this morning. I would advance the notion that one set of PR/SEO guys meatpuppeting may have just been replaced by the new editor and his firm. Had he not posted his response on the talk page, I would have been blocking as a meatpuppet. I'm suggesting COIN so that we make sure that there aren't BLP issues with that article and I believe it will need folks that are fluent in Spanish to help.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
The ping to me did not work because it wasn't signed.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Interesting. Sorry about the ping. Nonetheless, could we run a checkuser? It seems very possible that these are all the same guys. If they have enough of a financial stake at risk here this behaviour would make sense. Since this is someone who admits to be working for a PR firm, openly admitting they have been paid by Macro Bank, and we have seen similar disruptive edits on this and related pages by now-blocked users, can we at least suspect that this PR agency is attempting to continue their work? DaltonCastle ( talk) 00:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Tuquoquefili is a  Confirmed sock of the Superagente86/Danielseo451/Vaquillonhilton group of socks. Yunshui  雲 水 08:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply

26 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


This single purpose editor follows the same pattern of Sherlock's long term abuse on Wikipedia of removing reliably sourced content. Almost certainly Sherlock circumventing their block. The master, Sherlock, was found to linked to User:Tuquoquefili. Tuquoquefili has made the following admission:

I have been employed at Hormigas Group where I work on a variety of clients, maily from Latin America. I use my Wikipedia account in a professional and personal capacity to add factual information to client pages, only with supporting third party news sources. My task is to guarantee a well-sourced article of clients, with reliable information.

These users have some paid interest with elements of the Argentine government.

Jose Luis Manzano

DaltonCastle ( talk) 20:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 20:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Technically, there's not enough to match them with any previous accounts. It's a mix-and-match of location and other technical details, but none of them is in alignment. The best I can do based on the data is  Inconclusive, which I understand is not particularly helpful.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  • I've blocked AlfredoSande. However, the account hasn't been used abusively, so I don't think a block for Viperx666 is needed yet. (Assuming a bit of good faith here.) I don't think there's enough evidence to connect Viperx666 to Sherlock4000, so I'm taking no action in that regard. Mike V • Talk 01:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply

28 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Same pattern as the previous socks and self-declared PR agency (See here), attempting to remove sourced content from the Brito page and drag my name through the mud.

On Brito's page edits by ClufoWatson are almost the same..

as edits made by previously confirmed socks:

User then canvassed on Argentina project page for help, misrepresenting facts:

Then tried to drag my name through mud on COI noticeboard when they are almost certainly Sherlock navigating around block. Cant stress enough that I write about corruption topics often:

Behavioural evidence almost perfectly matches previously proven sock-puppets and I am requesting further administrative review. In addition, since these pages are under continuous alterations by single-purpose users after a major editor was blocked for sock-puppetry and conflict of interest on these pages, I am also requesting these pages be protected. DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I'm not sure if this is Sherlock but it is certainly a meatpuppet and likely paid. Indeffing and closing.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • For the record,  Confirmed. Archiving. Courcelles ( talk) 00:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply


05 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


I am again requesting someone look into the activities of another user. I do not, and will not, advocate an opinion that anyone editing Argentine related pages from a POV in favor of the government is a sock or has a paid interest - BUT, this user follows much of the same patterns as Sherlock4000, who WAS blocked for long term account abuse and a major, on-going conflict of interest. SegataSanshiro1 (who I will call Segata for short) is still a newer user, has only been active on Argentine pages, edited several of the same pages as Sherlock, follows the same patterns, and makes accusatory claims against those they've disagreed with. Sherlock has been found to have numerous socks and meatpuppets so it is not a totally far-fetched idea at all that Segata is one and the same. If Segata is innocent then they have nothing to hide. But this kind of behavior is disruptive and my suspicions are not without merit.

This user states their interest is in Argentine railroads. Yet they have made some considerable edits to Economy of Argentina, Paul Singer (businessman), and now Argentine former transport minister Ricardo Jaime. Anyone familiar with former Sherlock4000 SPIs will know about the pages he and his socks had been active on and their disclosed paid interest.

Ricardo Jaime. New behavior for Segata, although Sherlock was interested in pages of politicians:

Paul Singer. Edits antagonistic towards bond-holders. On more than one occasion, Sherlock called me a "Vulture fund troll" for totally unrelated edits:


Distressed securities fund:


Economy of Argentina:

Other, mainly accusatory tone and use of term "trolling" for anyone in disagreement:

Let me know what more you all need. I hope we can get to the bottom of this promptly. Thank you for your time. DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Hi DaltonCastle, I would appreciate at least some basic courtesy in letting me know that you have opened such an investigation. I think all me and this "sockmaster" shared in common disdain for editors trying to push a free-market POV on Wikipedia and those who are likely financed by market interests. Those pages you listed are some I'm keeping an eye on since they have in the past been heavily edited by editors I suspect have financial motives for their edits. It drives me livid to see this kind of behaviour to say the least, but I only pursue amending it on a couple of articles since I would prefer to focus on more productive things. Preventing this sort of systemic bias and little Gordon Gekko wannabes from running riot is something I intend to continue doing, but it is only a secondary interest.
My interest in Ricardo Jaime was limited to him having been Transport secretary and I'm interested in Argentine transport articles, in particular the railways. I have also edited articles on Florencio Randazzo (Jaime's successor after Transport was merged with Interior) and the Ministry of the Interior and Transport, but only to a limited degree like with the Jaime article. I thought the article was very well researched and very accurate, the way it was portrayed appeared to be intentionally inflammatory and written to discredit political leaders rather than deal with the subject matter, so I tagged it. I agree with many of the opinions (on a personal level) you put forward in the article, but I'm sure even you can see it is a fairly loaded article which on the surface appears to have ulterior motives or just lacks much of a broad understanding of Argentina, its culture or history. I hope you didn't take the tagging of the article personally since it was an article you created, and I hope you can continue to improve it but I have no interest in editing it again unless he returns to politics (very doubtful).
The accusations of being a "government stooge" or the like are quite absurd and I take them quite personally since it couldn't be much further from the truth. Even with the brief interactions I have with the transport articles, I write about the respective transport projects of both the national government and the government of Buenos Aires (as well as other provincial governments) who are in direct opposition. Again, I think if you had a more significant cultural and political knowledge about Argentina then you could perhaps understand that having a severe dislike for people like Paul Singer isn't synonymous with having a pro-government position - there's approximately 42 million people in Argentina who share those views so its not exactly coincidental that myself and this other user share them. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 00:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Didnt mean to get personal. I was just curious. No harm was intended and no harm was done. DaltonCastle ( talk) 19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
To be clear I have no issue with tagging the article, or even someone improving it, at all. Its just that Sherlock4000 had made similar edits in the past on similar pages. DaltonCastle ( talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Sure, normally I would leave things be for pages which don't really interest me but sometimes when I see serious problems and I feel like making some quick fixes then I do. I do find it somewhat irritating in cases like this though where editors appear to spend a disproportionate amount of time in attempting to justify their preconceptions about certain countries or political systems when, for example, the page Corruption in the United Kingdom does not exist. Again, just because I am easily irritated by this does not mean I am another person. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 22:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • SegataSanshiro1 ( talk · contribs · count) is between Red X Unrelated and  Inconclusive. Frankly, I'm a bit confused when I trace the history of this case from its inception to the present, not just my own direct involvement, but that of other CheckUsers. I'm reluctant to say what confuses me, so I'll leave it at that.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Bbb23 I moved very recently to somewhere I'd much rather be :) - I hope that addresses your confusion, though personally I have no idea how anyone could find such a decision confusing. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 00:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ SegataSanshiro1: No, not completely. Where were you, and where are you now? You don't have to be specific. The country will do.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
UK --> Argentina - I thought I addressed that above. I'm curious as to what you're referring to now. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 00:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't see the countries addressed above, but no matter, thanks for answering the question.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, googling my own IP seems to suggest I'm in the country I think I am and that I'm not losing my mind... The fact that neither country comes up confuses me more than it does you. I'm quite curious what countries you're getting and why, but I guess that's not particularly relevant here. If you wish to disclose then I'd be happy to know, but otherwise I'm content with this being left at me not being the person DaltonCastle has accused me of being. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 01:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply

15 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

@ Bbb23: @ Berean Hunter:

New, single-purpose user, making the exact same edit as the previously found socks on Jorge Horacio Brito's page.

Edit by HungryThai:

Edits by previous Socks:

On the talk page they make the exact same arguments as the previous socks:

There is persistent vandalism and sock-puppetry on this page that merits a more long-term page protection. The behavioral evidence of this new user looks like a WP:DUCK. Checkuser data may reveal more but this appears to almost certainly be the PR firm at work that openly disclosed its interest on this page. DaltonCastle ( talk) 22:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 22:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

31 December 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Considering the previous investigations, wherein the socks admitted to being paid advocates on behalf of the Argentine government, this one should be pretty simple.

New user admits to working for a PR firm. They are pushing the same edits against our consensus as previous socks. DaltonCastle ( talk) 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I'm just going to go ahead and block this duckling. Drmies ( talk) 19:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Puppet blocked. Nothing more to do. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 12:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

05 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Three suspected accounts have all made identical edits in the past month.

Suspected sock master was discovered to be a professional PR entity making edits on behalf of Argentine public figures.

Instead of approaching the subject on the talk page they are following the behavior of the previously blocked accounts. Would like to see if someone can take a look at this. DaltonCastle ( talk) 22:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC) DaltonCastle ( talk) 22:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive&oldid=1076818824"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE