Soffredo
- Soffredo ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 January 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Soffredo is evading their 3-month block with the IP. There is far too much overlapping interests to be coincidental: [1] vs. [2]; [3] vs [4]; [5] vs [6]; [7] vs [8]; [9] vs [10]; [11] vs [12]; [13] vs [14]; [15] vs [16]; [17] vs [18]; [19] vs [20]. TDL ( talk) 01:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=File:SyrianCivilWarMap.png&diff=141176885&oldid=141176448){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=File_talk:SyrianCivilWarMap.png&diff=prev&oldid=639492034){kind=link}
- @ Mike V: Personally, having interacted with Soffredo for some time, I have no doubt it is them. But I understand that you want to be careful due to the potential consequences. Here is a bit more behavioural evidence for you to consider, beyond the overlapping interests:
- Here Soffredo pipes [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|Islamic State]] on List of active rebel groups. Here the IP reverts to this form.
- Both Soffredo and the IP focus on modifying flag templates in infoboxes. For example: [21] vs [22] on Template:Syrian Civil War infobox.
- Soffredo has a habit of using the flag template inline during talk page discussions. For example: [23]/ [24]/ [25]/ [26]. The IP does the same thing: [27] vs [28]. This advanced template usage would seem unlikely for a new user.
- This post about Novorossiya's status as a confederation is directly related to one of Soffredo's hobby horses. They were blocked for edit warring on this subject. See User_talk:Soffredo/Archive_2014#Unblock.
- Another major focus of Soffredo's editing is making lists of states which recognize disputed states: [29], [30], [31]. In particular, compare [32]/ [33] with [34]. Note the identical section headings and very similar table structures.
- Yes each of these points could very well be a coincidence, but in my opinion their sum total makes it unlikely that they are unrelated editors. TDL ( talk) 05:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
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
- Looking at some of the diffs, there's a possibility you're right. At the same time I don't think there's enough behavioral evidence right now to give me confidence in a block. Other diffs provided seem like they're just coincidences. Plus with 7 previous blocks, the next block is likely to be in the range of a several months, if not indefinite. I'd like to get a second opinion to be sure. @ Bbb23: Would you mind offering your thoughts? Mike V • Talk 03:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Mike V: In addition to reviewing the evidence presented by the filer, I looked at stylistic similarities between Soffredo and the IP, and there are just too many of them on the Talk pages. Not just the use of the flag template, but the use of the template that makes edits green. The extensive use of quotes. The rather pedantic style, mostly erudite but various pompous errors, like the incorrect use of "whom". The IP has fewer edits to Talk pages so there's less evidence, but in a sense that makes it that much more striking - that I can find so many similarities with so little. I would find that the IP is Soffredo and increase Soffredo's block to indefinite, but the final decision and duration are up to you. As for the IP, I would block them, too, and for a significant duration. Geolocate indicates dynamic, but it also says "none detected" for services, which is usually suspicious.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Danlaycock for providing more information and Bbb23 for your insight. I've looked at the further evidence provided and took a deeper look myself. I think it's more than likely we can conclude that Soffredo was editing while logged out to evade the 3 month block. I've blocked the account indefinitely and issued a 3 month block for the IP, as it appears to be somewhat static. Again, thank you both for your input. Mike V • Talk 06:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
08 February 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
IP is editing the same articles of interest. The blocked IP 24.44.176.72 has edited the same articles such as Sony Pictures Entertainment hack and List of active rebel groups. Both Soffredo and the IP have made similar edits to Froot (album) such as here, [35] [36]. This edit [37] is significant because Soffredo has been blocked multiple times for edit warring about the inclusion of Novorossiya, which he claims is not a state. [38] [39]. Other articles they have both edited include List of sovereign states, Template:Marina and the Diamonds songs, 2014 Ferguson unrest, Independence referendum, and articles related to the War in Donbass. These are way too many instances to be a coincidence. TL565 ( talk) 02:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
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
- Thanks for the report. The IP seems somewhat stable, so I've blocked it for 2 weeks. Mike V • Talk 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
22 April 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
24.* was previously under a block as a sock of Soffredo, which just expired. The IP is back making the same types of edits. Here they oppose the deletion of an article that was primarily edited by Soffredo. [40] The overlaping interests are quite damning. Comparing [41] vs [42]; [43] vs [44], [45] vs [46]; [47] vs [48] there is no doubt that this is Soffredo again. 199.* is stale, just including here for future reference. TDL ( talk) 22:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just added 199.249.227.189, who is edit warring the prior IP's edits. All three geolocate to Westport, Connecticut. Compare
[49] vs
[50].
TDL (
talk) 14:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- On further inspection, the user seems to be quite active across 199.249.227.*. All of the following have been used by Soffredo in the last few months:
- 199.249.227.145 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.114 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.156 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.164 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.165 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.168 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). 199.249.227.180 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.183 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.146 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.148 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.151 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.155 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- These all geolocate to "Westport Public Schools", so a range block on the school's IPs may be necessary. TDL ( talk) 16:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- On further inspection, the user seems to be quite active across 199.249.227.*. All of the following have been used by Soffredo in the last few months:
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
- Rangeblocking 199.249.227.0/24 and blocking 24.xxx for 6 months. Closing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
22 October 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Back at same old subjects. [51] vs [52]. The only other recent edit by the IP is this to Westport, Connecticut, which is where many of the past socks (such as 199.249.227.145 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) geolocate to. Older edits are also consistent with Soffredo (ie [53] vs [54]), so this is like a static IP. TDL ( talk) 02:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
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
- IP has not been active in the last two days, and it is dynamic. I'm closing this with no action. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Soffredo
- Soffredo ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 January 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Soffredo is evading their 3-month block with the IP. There is far too much overlapping interests to be coincidental: [1] vs. [2]; [3] vs [4]; [5] vs [6]; [7] vs [8]; [9] vs [10]; [11] vs [12]; [13] vs [14]; [15] vs [16]; [17] vs [18]; [19] vs [20]. TDL ( talk) 01:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Mike V: Personally, having interacted with Soffredo for some time, I have no doubt it is them. But I understand that you want to be careful due to the potential consequences. Here is a bit more behavioural evidence for you to consider, beyond the overlapping interests:
- Here Soffredo pipes [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|Islamic State]] on List of active rebel groups. Here the IP reverts to this form.
- Both Soffredo and the IP focus on modifying flag templates in infoboxes. For example: [21] vs [22] on Template:Syrian Civil War infobox.
- Soffredo has a habit of using the flag template inline during talk page discussions. For example: [23]/ [24]/ [25]/ [26]. The IP does the same thing: [27] vs [28]. This advanced template usage would seem unlikely for a new user.
- This post about Novorossiya's status as a confederation is directly related to one of Soffredo's hobby horses. They were blocked for edit warring on this subject. See User_talk:Soffredo/Archive_2014#Unblock.
- Another major focus of Soffredo's editing is making lists of states which recognize disputed states: [29], [30], [31]. In particular, compare [32]/ [33] with [34]. Note the identical section headings and very similar table structures.
- Yes each of these points could very well be a coincidence, but in my opinion their sum total makes it unlikely that they are unrelated editors. TDL ( talk) 05:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
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
- Looking at some of the diffs, there's a possibility you're right. At the same time I don't think there's enough behavioral evidence right now to give me confidence in a block. Other diffs provided seem like they're just coincidences. Plus with 7 previous blocks, the next block is likely to be in the range of a several months, if not indefinite. I'd like to get a second opinion to be sure. @ Bbb23: Would you mind offering your thoughts? Mike V • Talk 03:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Mike V: In addition to reviewing the evidence presented by the filer, I looked at stylistic similarities between Soffredo and the IP, and there are just too many of them on the Talk pages. Not just the use of the flag template, but the use of the template that makes edits green. The extensive use of quotes. The rather pedantic style, mostly erudite but various pompous errors, like the incorrect use of "whom". The IP has fewer edits to Talk pages so there's less evidence, but in a sense that makes it that much more striking - that I can find so many similarities with so little. I would find that the IP is Soffredo and increase Soffredo's block to indefinite, but the final decision and duration are up to you. As for the IP, I would block them, too, and for a significant duration. Geolocate indicates dynamic, but it also says "none detected" for services, which is usually suspicious.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Danlaycock for providing more information and Bbb23 for your insight. I've looked at the further evidence provided and took a deeper look myself. I think it's more than likely we can conclude that Soffredo was editing while logged out to evade the 3 month block. I've blocked the account indefinitely and issued a 3 month block for the IP, as it appears to be somewhat static. Again, thank you both for your input. Mike V • Talk 06:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
08 February 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
IP is editing the same articles of interest. The blocked IP 24.44.176.72 has edited the same articles such as Sony Pictures Entertainment hack and List of active rebel groups. Both Soffredo and the IP have made similar edits to Froot (album) such as here, [35] [36]. This edit [37] is significant because Soffredo has been blocked multiple times for edit warring about the inclusion of Novorossiya, which he claims is not a state. [38] [39]. Other articles they have both edited include List of sovereign states, Template:Marina and the Diamonds songs, 2014 Ferguson unrest, Independence referendum, and articles related to the War in Donbass. These are way too many instances to be a coincidence. TL565 ( talk) 02:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
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
- Thanks for the report. The IP seems somewhat stable, so I've blocked it for 2 weeks. Mike V • Talk 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
22 April 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
24.* was previously under a block as a sock of Soffredo, which just expired. The IP is back making the same types of edits. Here they oppose the deletion of an article that was primarily edited by Soffredo. [40] The overlaping interests are quite damning. Comparing [41] vs [42]; [43] vs [44], [45] vs [46]; [47] vs [48] there is no doubt that this is Soffredo again. 199.* is stale, just including here for future reference. TDL ( talk) 22:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just added 199.249.227.189, who is edit warring the prior IP's edits. All three geolocate to Westport, Connecticut. Compare
[49] vs
[50].
TDL (
talk) 14:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- On further inspection, the user seems to be quite active across 199.249.227.*. All of the following have been used by Soffredo in the last few months:
- 199.249.227.145 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.114 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.156 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.164 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.165 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.168 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). 199.249.227.180 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.183 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.146 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.148 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.151 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 199.249.227.155 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- These all geolocate to "Westport Public Schools", so a range block on the school's IPs may be necessary. TDL ( talk) 16:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- On further inspection, the user seems to be quite active across 199.249.227.*. All of the following have been used by Soffredo in the last few months:
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
- Rangeblocking 199.249.227.0/24 and blocking 24.xxx for 6 months. Closing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
22 October 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Back at same old subjects. [51] vs [52]. The only other recent edit by the IP is this to Westport, Connecticut, which is where many of the past socks (such as 199.249.227.145 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) geolocate to. Older edits are also consistent with Soffredo (ie [53] vs [54]), so this is like a static IP. TDL ( talk) 02:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
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
- IP has not been active in the last two days, and it is dynamic. I'm closing this with no action. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)