Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Brunodam

Brunodam ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date March 29 2009, 18:34 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by AlasdairGreen27 ( talk)


First, we need to tie the IP address to Brunodam. IP removing sock notices related to Bruno: [1] [2] [3] [4], and the IP quoting from Bruno's blog: [5] [6], and here is the IP editing the itwiki article on Pompeo D'Ambrosio, an article created by a Bruno sock about a family member: [7] [8] [9].

Next, Brunodam and his various socks have created a series of articles on alleged Italian populations in a variety of countries, to which Sabanglana has added Italian Ethiopians, and DuilioM has added Italian Somalians. The following is a list of overlapping article edits revealing the 'users' to be one and the same:

It is highly likely that, in addition to the IP address listed, an IP address of 4.231.xxx.xxx tracing to Broomfield, Colorado will show up, as this is Bruno's home IP.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Cunibertus

hi I'm a newbie here and I do not really understand what are you tellig gentlemen

as my knowledge of complex technical english and slang is also limited

I suppose it is right to replay here so I'll inform you I edited the italian ascari article as I neede to hyperlink it with articles I'm creating, and possibly to draw information from existing articles for my own.

I'm working at present on the irregular troops in the service of Italy, the so called "Bande" who is one of my many historical interests

and everyone on wiki could verify this

the ascari thing is related to that, I would also translate existing related material and articles from the italian wiki to the english one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunibertus ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

70.90.59.74

I am the one who has used 70.90.59.74. I have an IP with Earthlink; see:

Attention:

This IP address, 70.90.59.74, is registered to EarthLink, an Internet service provider through which thousands of individual users may connect to the internet. This IP may be randomly assigned to a different person when the current user disconnects. Warnings or messages left on this page may not be received by the intended user. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself.

I believe user:AlasdairGreen27 is often obsessed with sockpuppets of Brunodam or Pio or GiovanniGiove or other Italians who are against Sloveno-Croatians on Dalmatian/Istrian issues. Another example is the accusations against user:Romaioi. See: [25]. I am sure he (and his friends, like dictator Tito supporter user:DIREKTOR) will need some medical help (excuse my honesty) because - even banning Cunibertus, DuilioM, Sabanglana, Luigi28, Ragusino, D'Agro' and others - the obsession will keep going and going with many other Italians (who will be accused of sockpupperty in the next months and years) haunting him. And the obsession can become paranoia....I am an Istriano who has been following the debate against a group od Croats and Slovenians on the Italian Wikipedia. See: [26] and in english brunodam.blog.kataweb.it/2008/11/. Hope AlasdairGreen27 will not get "sick" with all the new sockpuppets he will find in the next months and years.........Primonino (of course, I will be accused to be another sockpuppet of Pio, GiovanniGiove, Brunodam or whoever, according to the "obsession/paranoia" of Alasdairgreen27).

P.S.: I forgot (as an example of what does the obsession of AlasdairGreen27 against normal Italian users) to add the ban of user: D'agro [27]. This ban has shocked many users of the Italian Wikipedia, like the "tricky" bans of user:Luigi 28 and user:Barba Nane who are two respected wikiusers of the it.wiki-- 207.69.137.36 ( talk) 04:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)(see my new IP earthlink address, totally new after 30 minutes only!). reply

DuilioM

I believe all this is INSANE. It reminds me the continuous problems with HACKERS from Russia and eastern Europe countries (like Croatia and Slovenia) who are stealing the IP of internet users. Here it is an example of a few months ago [28].

These Slav hackers know that it is impossible to do a CU in Wikipedia that can be 100% precise, because of IP changes in servers like Earthlink, use of different modems by the same person, or other reasons. With IP stolen and CU not 100% sure they play the game of suspition to get banned who they don't like, even if he is someone like me who doesn't write against Slav topics and doesn't do any vandalism. So, the cases of D'agro, Luigi 28, GiovanniGiove, Barba Nane, Brunodam, Ragusino and many more are astonishing proof of the mistakes done by the CU and the admins who are onesided against the Italians dealing with Dalmatian articles.

The result of all this: I am thinking of stopping my contributions to Wikipedia from today. In other words Wikipedia is being damaged by obsessed persons like AlasdairGreen27, who are turning this site a battleground for their nationalistic fights. To read his talk page is the equivalent to read a continuous request of CU, arbitrations and fights against Italians dealing with eastern Adriatic topics: as Primonino writes all this looks like obsession turning slowly to paranoia in the next months with new accusations of Italian users. Can he (and these hackers) be stopped? I doubt it, unless a huge scandal will rock the English Wikipedia and the main authorities will intervene. Indeed, as a consequence of all this, even in the It.Wiki is being created a group to fight for justice against the lies and tricks of user:AlasdairGreen27, user:DIREKTOR, user:Kubura, user:Zenanarh and others, as can be read here [29].

I am sure their group will get justice soon or later, and my case will be another they will use to obtain it. Sincerely, -- DuilioM ( talk) 15:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Sabanglana

Hey, I cannot even write my defense! Quickly (in less than a day, while in other cases the CU takes many days) all is done! Just now I open my computer and ----ZAC---I am banned! Well, what can I say?, this a RING, a SHAMEFUL RING that looks to me like a BALKAN MAFIA! Unbelievable that Nishkid24 adds two more users to be banned, like he were informed directly by the accuser Aladairgreen. May be he is part of the slavic group against we Italians in the english wiki, don't you agree? This is really really really INSANE. I write all this because, as Primonino and DuilioM and others in the it.wiki write, THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE IS JUST BEGINNING! and all this is going to be reported in the due place at the right moment.-- Sabanglana ( talk) 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

AlasdairGreen27 you personally attacked Cunibertus here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:DIREKTOR&diff=prev&oldid=279889841 -- 82.54.139.131 ( talk) 09:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

DuilioM is also in it.wiki: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:DuilioM. He can't be a Brunodam's Sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.147.132 ( talk) 16:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply


 Clerk endorsed under E rather than A - not arbcom sanctioned. Mayalld ( talk) 06:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk note: If this case is anything other than a good faith report, you can be sure that it will be discovered. Adding paragraphs of rants about the motives of the reporter just means that it will take longer to do so. In order to make processing of the case easier, lengthy diatribes will be removed to the talk page. Mayalld ( talk) 15:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply


Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following:
  1. Againstantism ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Sabanglana ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Right2 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. DuilioM ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

These all appear to be socks of Brunodam ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). The Brunodam IP that was CU'ed last year popped up again under these accounts – it can't be a coincidence. Cunibertus ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Red X Unrelated. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

"Appear" is not a sure accusation. A "coincidence" cannot rule a sure accusation, in any court of the western world. And the CU "popped up" can be the usual hacker's action. We need REAL justice in wikipedia! Nishkid, are you of Slavic roots? It is very strange that you ADD even two other names to the accusation (Againstantism and Right2).-- DuilioM ( talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date June 5 2009, 23:12 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by AlasdairGreen27


A blatant case of ban evasion. Bruno was banned [30] for socking and is again back now. Biltmore has turned up to reinstate and edit an article created by Bruno [31] that had been subsequently merged. The related IP is known to be one of Bruno's, and was fooling around with the merge vote just prior to Biltmore's arrival [32] [33]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 23:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply


very  Likely -- Luk talk 07:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • I was just about to endorse, but will note here that cu Avraham has done so. Nathan T 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions

The account is blocked for an indefinite period. The IP's block will last for two weeks. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  08:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld ( talk) 11:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply



Report date August 25 2009, 12:12 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by DIREKTOR

This user is likely a sockpuppet of one of the many sockpuppeteers I assisted in uncovering (mostly Italian-based). The account of this supposedly "new" user was devoted to futile attempts at getting me banned at WP:NPOV/N, WP:HD, at User talk:Toddst1, WP:SPI/Rex Dominator, etc. The "new" user was effectively following me around and badmouthing me everywhere I go.

The interests of User:Sir Floyd are also revealing: the few edits not intended to bring about my block were devoted to controversial Dalmatia articles, reminiscent of the old Dalmatia edit-wars. [34] When User:Sir Floyd's very familiar "English" to the mix, I believe I can objectively say that there is little doubt this user is just another in a long, long line of socks from the banned group of Italian users. The most active of these sockpuppeteers being User:PIO/ Luigi 28 and User:Brunodam/ Marygiove. With the former's IP range currently blocked after another sock ( User:Ducatista2) was found, User:Brunodam/ Marygiove seems most likely, but I'd also like to request a more thorough checkuser to see if there are any other connections (as one can never be 100% sure which one of those guys resurfaced on enWiki). Thanks, -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
 Clerk endorsed — Jake Wartenberg 14:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 2 2010, 08:51 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Tim Song

Filing empty case per CU request. Tim Song ( talk) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: All suspected socks are confirmed to be the same user per Jpgordon ( talk · contribs). All already blocked and retagged as socks of Brunodam. Tim Song ( talk) 08:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
28 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

[35] -- DQ (t) (e) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (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
03 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

I've just blocked this account on it.wiki as another sock of Brunodam's, cfr, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam/Archive Vituzzu ( talk) 11:15, 3 April 2011 (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
  • information Administrator note CU won't do much here as we have nothing to compare this account to. But I've blocked it per the it.wiki block. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply
21 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~" 

Vituzzu (
talk) 20:58, 21 April 2011 (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
24 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~" 

Vituzzu (
talk) 10:40, 24 April 2011 (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 usual sweep, please. T. Canens ( talk) 00:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    •  Confirmed the account and blocked some IPs, but I don't see any other recent accounts. Dominic· t 06:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply
11 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

After reading the page Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brunodam the description of the user's contributions seems to match 1)he seems to know already fairly well how wikipedia works 2)he focuses on Italian colonialism topics. The last avatar of this user seems to be OneDalm0 blocked in march 2011 although I couldn't find the exact rationale. N.B. I have a little debate with this user right now, I would like to answer to his points but want to make sure first that I'm not waisting my time Kimdime ( talk) 12:13, 11 June 2011 (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

 Confirmed that 4tommy ( talk · contribs) and Libyancitizen2 ( talk · contribs) are matches to 2forever ( talk · contribs), a previously blocked sock. TN X Man 13:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, TXS I don't know where the block of those users should be asked ?-- Kimdime ( talk) 14:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply
12 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

the same address in Florida that has intermittently caused problems on the Thornton expedition article and the same use of words and edit pattern The mayor of Yurp ( talk) 02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Only stupid persons, like Brutaldeluxe, can believe they can hit for months and years and never "get back" something... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.39.153 ( talk) 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

  • 98.77.39.153 should be blocked for disruption regardless of this SPI. Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia... Them From Space 02:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
I have done more than 16,000 contributions to wikipedia in the last 5 years, with many IPs and usernames. And I have NEVER done vandalism. But this time is different, because I hate a guy like this rat named Brutaldeluxe that writes in his userpage that Italy is the land of the "Cachi". This literally means Italy is a "cacata" (in Italian this word means "Sh..t"). What would you do, Themfromspacer, if somebody writes the same of your country? This rat only attacks italian articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.39.153 ( talk) 02:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
12 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

See my talk page history The mayor of Yurp ( talk) 23:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined. CU is still unnecessary here. Muzemike redid the block on 98.77.0.0/17, and the IP falls in that range. We're done here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
14 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same editing pattern and writing style, very similar name to User:NBDA, Brunodam's sock creator of Italian Spahis. The mayor of Yurp ( talk) 18:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Wow...this is simply ridiculous: WHO REALLY CARES? I think en.wiki is the refuge of CACATEmen like Brutaldeluxe. Nmdr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.208.127.65 ( talk) 17:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC) reply


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged (not checked). Elockid ( Talk) 23:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

31 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Went straight to reinstate images favoured by a previous sockpuppet on the Italian irredentism in Corsica article. Typical Brunodam message on user page. The mayor of Yurp ( talk) 03:21, 31 October 2011 (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
13 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

The article Gerisa (Libya) looks like a trivially modified previously-deleted Ghirza (as of 6 January 2011, at 23:19) by User:OneDalm0. Certainly looks to me like another version of Brunodam, but I'd prefer if someone else checks it, too. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:23, 13 November 2011 (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

(Though next time it should be posted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam itself, doesn't matter right now).  Confirmed, along with 2012veritas ( talk · contribs); both accounts indefinitely blocked. – MuZemike 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC) reply

13 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

The article Venetian & Italian cultural presence in Dalmatia looks like a trivially modified previously-deleted Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia. Certainly looks to me like another version of Brunodam, but I'd prefer if someone else checks it, too. The anonymous edits look indicative of a coverup, too. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:03, 13 December 2011 (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
  • Huge sections that match the old article, but can we triple check and look for other guys? -- DQ (t) (e) 11:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed as Brunodam:

Both accounts have been globally locked by a Steward. – MuZemike 23:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

12 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Margate92 ( talk · contribs) has recreated Territorio Sahara Libico as Southern Territory of Libyan Sahara; the former article was deleted per CSD g5 as a contribution of a community-banned user ( Brunodam ( talk · contribs)). If this is a good-faith contribution, I'd like to restore the deleted article and perform a history merge for attribution purposes, but Joy ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) requested that before I do so I request checkuser as this is apparently common behavior for Brunodam's sockpuppets. Please let me know if any further evidence is needed or I've done anything procedurally incorrect; I believe this meets criteria E ( block log, recreation of Brunodam's article). Thanks, — madman 05:04, 12 February 2012 (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
  •  Confirmed:
29 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Compare bottom sections of:

This seems like a slightly modified Brunodam modus operandi - new account that submits a pre-written article at a title that has a small difference from the old title where we had seen him before. This time he went through the trouble of actually rewriting the bulk of the article, but the identical references still give him away. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The following accounts are  Confirmed:

Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply

26 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Re-creation of Maria Pasquinelli under Pasquinelli, a topic only Brunodam has bothered with, and largely typical evasion method (different title). Joy [shallot] ( talk) 07:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, the content isn't largely identical like the ones before. Maybe Bruno has simply evolved and has started throwing us curveballs? Have you two examined his prior work, in general? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: Comparing the deleted version of the article to this version, they are very different in content and style. I'm not convinced this isn't a coincidence based on a single edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  •  Additional information needed - I have to agree with Dennis, we need more of a connection to endorse. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk endorsed - I'm endorsing. Comparing the formatting of the new and old versions, and taking into account the modified MO noted in the last SPI case, I think there's at least a reasonable likelihood that these two are the same; not enough for DUCK but enough for a check. T. Canens ( talk) 08:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • It's  Possible - the last batch appears to have edited entirely from a public location, and this is another public location in the same area. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 00:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Closing. No prejudice against reopening if more evidence surfaces. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
26 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


I already locked RossanaBianchi, I'm wondering how many unknown socks are yet to be found Vituzzu ( talk) 23:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Thank you. Binksternet ( talk) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think it's necessary or helpful to tag IPs like those if they weren't used for edits where users may want or need to check who made the edits. With the above it's obvious from the context who made the edits. Amalthea 19:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Okay. I was previously under the impression that an exhaustive list would be helpful. Binksternet ( talk) 19:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
It's helpful to list them here if they are from a new range (and those four are in the same range as the one reported one above). I mostly wanted to say that tagging the user pages with a sock tag was not really necessary here. Amalthea 19:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Matching named accounts I can find are:

Not sure yet what I'll do with the numerous anon accounts. I could release them per WMF privacy policy and our checkuser policy, but it may be easiest if I just revert them myself. Amalthea 08:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Can you post them on checkusers' mailing list? Thank you! -- Vituzzu ( talk) 14:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
(Un-closing case.) I've alerted Amalthea to Vituzzu's request. AGK [•] 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I've actually already sent Vituzzu a mail about it. Amalthea 13:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply
22 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Pretty much typical Brunodam style. [36]: editing one of "his" articles to remove problem tags while making seemingly random additions (to keep the recent changes line summary green I guess?), while apparently accusing User:Drpickem of "hate" in the edit summary, ignoring the simple fact that that user wasn't the one who reverted them previously, rather it was User:Amalthea. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:06, 22 October 2012 (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
29 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Topic of editing is basically Italian irredentism, but I can't find this particular netblock referenced in the categories, so I'm looking for any sort of corroboration before acting. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 11:44, 29 November 2012 (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
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - CUs do not usually link named accounts to IPs. This will have to be determined based on behavioural evidence. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: There isn't enough evidence presented in this case. Feel free to re-open if you have more evidence to present. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 18:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC) reply
10 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Another user just noticed that Norma Cossetto had been re-created at the name and surname inverted. I had removed the old article because it was made by a sockpuppet of Ragusino ( talk · contribs), but re-creations renamed to try to avoid scrutiny are typical Brunodam MO. I reported MASran previously for such a re-creation of a Brunodam article. It could theoretically be one and the same public location being used by two separate sets of people with the same particular POV. Or leprechauns :) Joy [shallot] ( talk) 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Looks likely. MASran carries the evolving modus operandi of Brunodam; slight changes to article titles, thorough changes to article text, but still the concentration on typical topics of interest. Binksternet ( talk) 00:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • no Declined because all named accounts except MASran has gone stale. CU would not yield anything useful; you will have to use behavior to judge. Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It's not immediately clear to me that they are related, and with the lack of CU evidence and a relative lack of recent disruption, I'm marking as closed unless there is an objection. NativeForeigner Talk 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
12 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Brunodam is found of Italian colonialism, as such, he regularly reverts the redirect on Fourth Shore (see history). Enok did such a thing [37]. No one would do that except from Brunodam. To take this step, you have to 1)know about the subject 2) know that such a page existed previously and was redirected. Anyway, I am not the only one to make connections between this user and Brunodam, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enok#Brunodam.27s_content and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enok#Republic_of_Ragusa . Enok was blocked [38] 3 times for edit waring, something that remind us of Brunodam bad temper-- Kimdime ( talk) 09:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

If this user is not of my own city, it will be quite easy for administrators to confirm my uniqueness. I also reverted your improper edit. -- Enok ( talk) 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined - This user's account is older than the puppet master and he was active while Checkusers have previously looked for sleeper accounts for this puppetmaster, yet his name didn't pop up. The evidence presented isn't sufficient to warrant a CU, and the prior investigations make a link highly unlikely. As this is just speculation, I'm closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply
05 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

CW-LTA Brunodam (I'd say DUCK since one of the IP, as usual, wrote a message on the talkpage of the registered user), -- Vituzzu ( talk) 18:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Vituzzu ( talk) 18:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

As wrote user:Enok, when accused to be a sock of this "Brunodam" last May, I want to repeat the same: If this user is not of my own city, it will be quite easy for administrators to confirm my uniqueness. To judge only "based on behavior" is not right, please. If somebody wants my data, I'll be more than happy to submit it.-- Juror5 ( talk) 20:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Since this case has involved long-term cross-wiki abuse in the past, I ran checks on this account. Unfortunately, since they are editing from public computers, the CU data was unhelpful. Based on the behavior, though, this is certainly Brunodam. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 18:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: I'm inclined to agree. Please G5/revert all of the contributions by these users if they are determined to be socks. ( CSD G5) NativeForeigner Talk 17:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I've deleted/reverted everything with the exception of his edits to Gaius_Petronius. I think they may not be POV driven but I'd like somebody else to take a look and make a judgment call before it is closed. NativeForeigner Talk 16:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know enough about the subject matter to make that determination but we do need to close this case. If necessary, a note may be left on the article talk page for a POV check. Closing as we seem to be finished here.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply
16 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


New account created a few months ago. Same peculiar interests and edits as Brunodam, which are centered on Fascist-period Italy and its colonial territories. Uploaded File:Italian Ascari.jpg, a repeatedly deleted file that NBDA ("New Brunodam") and various other Brunodam socks had previously uploaded as File:Ascari. Also claims that his father originally shot the image in 1940 while in Italian Africa, and that it is now on his property ("photo done by my father in 1940 while he was in Italian Africa, now on my property"). Additionally, he licensed the file for reuse under an Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International license, asserting that he is "the copyright holder of this work" [39]. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I am not Brunodam. I am a 66 years floridian, whose father did military service in Africa during WWII. I am ready to show proofs of this if requested. -- Oldsettler ( talk) 19:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I want to add that I wrote a lot on wiki as an IP from public libraries where I live and that, yes, I wrote on something (looking at the "user compare report") similar to what wrote in 2008 the brunodam, but he did this 7 years ago.....and many other users did the same on the same articles....anyway, if the checkuser wants I am ready to give him my phone in order to talk with him personally. Sincerely.-- Oldsettler ( talk) 20:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I have checked the photo and I have seen that it has been taken from a postcard showing "Italian Ascari". My father evidently did a "reduced" photo of the center of the postcard. That means that the postcard could have been owned by others: this explains the file:Ascari deleted years ago and posted on commons by other wiki users. Of course, if requested, I can show the photo "on my hand" (I can put it on Commons). Sincerely,-- Oldsettler ( talk) 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Actually, Brunodam's last socks were blocked in summer 2013, a few months before you registered this account in late 2014. You also wrote on the original file description page (before it too was again deleted [40]) that your father himself took the photo in 1940 when he was in Italian Africa, and that the photo is now on your property. Additionally, you licensed the file for reuse under an Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International license, asserting that you are "the copyright holder of this work". So it's a bit late to now be claiming that the image was actually from a postcard [41]. Middayexpress ( talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
As said before, I am not experienced about Wikipedia because I am collaborating only since the end of last year (and one year and half after last supposed Brunodams's edits, not "a few months"!): that is why I "licensed the file for reuse under an Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International license". It was a mistake that indirectly shows that I am not Brunodam, who had a lot of knowledge about Wikipedia because he has been on Wikipedia since 2008 or before. Anyway, I am going to appeal in future the "erase" of the postcard/photo from commons because it has obviously been done 75 years ago, while it seems "someone" mistakenly thinks the photo came from a blog started only in 2011.(see: [42] ; [43]. BTW -because of what he is doing to me- I am starting to investigate in full detail who is this Middayexpress: I am astonished by how "deep" is his knowledge on Somalian terrorism ( Al-Shabaab, etc........)-- Oldsettler ( talk) 13:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Hey, I'm just going by what I see as a longtime member of the various Horn of Africa WikiProjects. You re-uploaded a deleted file of uncertain copyright status that Brunodam had repeatedly attempted to upload, indicated that your father had taken it in 1940 while in Italian Africa, and licensed the file for reuse as the copyright holder. It wasn't a new scan from a postcard either, but rather the exact same file. This is why identical copies of the file were easily located elsewhere online (e.g. [44]). One can't simply pick random old files off of the internet and then claim them as being copyright free. The files could've originally been published in a copyrighted magazine for all one knows; that is why the original source and author must be indicated per policy. If you had obtained the file off of the internet, it would've been best to just admit this and move on instead of insisting that your father himself had taken the photo or whatever. Those are soldiers in the file, meaning it was taken in some sort of military setting; viz., the East Africa Campaign according to that forum link [45]. Middayexpress ( talk) 19:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The malignity of this Middayexpress is unbelievable. Why against me? I have never done anything with him or against him, but -after obtaining to erase my dad's photo- now attacks me continuously repeating the same accusations again and again and again with his typical "byzantine phrases" full of the same things. I have read his 56 archives and I have found that he is a Somalian living in the UK (probably in the London area full of supporters of ISIS: read [46]) and that he has had "fightings" with many wikipedians. He has collected many blocks and menaces of blocks for his continuous edit-warrings and seems to promote moslem POVs in a way that remembers the religious fanatism: most important to me, he seems to "hate" colonialism and western colonialists, so probably he identifies me with the Italians who colonized his Somalia....and this can explain his attacks against me....But I sincerely have an high esteem of Somalian people, thanks to my dad who used to remember me when I was a child that Prince Luigi Amedeo, Duke of the Abruzzi wanted to be buried in Somalia because "Somalis have a very good heart, not the hypocrital one of the Turin aristocracy". But this Middaexpress does not seem a Somalian: he is full of hate! Anyway, I want to repeat to the admins doing behavior investigation that I can show the photo "on my hand" (I can put it on Commons). The photo in question is not the "exact file...(because I) re-uploaded a deleted file of uncertain copyright status that Brunodam had repeatedly attempted to upload", as with malice this Middayexpress writes. The original postcard -done 75 years ago!- can be seen here in this Italian website ( [47]), with the words "truppe ascari di fanteria". Sincerely, and for the last time -- Oldsettler ( talk) 13:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

There's no point in employing ad hominem. I haven't spoken ill of you personally much less indicated my ethnic background nor where I reside, so you're grasping at straws. What is certain is that the image at hand is indeed the exact same file that Brunodam repeatedly tried to upload, not a new scan from a postcard (though the file may originally have been scanned from a postcard by Brunodam). This is why it appears on various wiki mirror sites such as wikia.com, as well as the letruppecoloniali blog above [48]. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Deus laudetur! Finally Middayexpress admits the existence of the postcard.....and the possibility that "the file may originally have been scanned from a postcard by Brunodam".....OK, that's a first step. Now let's "put a feet on the moon" and imagine a further step: Brunodam has copied from the same exact file -originated from a postcard, from which my dad did a central photo (or even there was a postcard with only the central section)- that I have used to create my file (File:Italian_Ascari.jpg). In this case Brunodam has copied the photo that has copied my father original. The possibilities here are endless and we can finish discussing to the infinite, as everybody can understand. Anyway, allow me to remember and to repeat to the admins doing behavior investigation that I can show the photo "on my hand" (I can put it on Commons). This is a real proof, not based on "infinite" thinking and suppositions.-- Oldsettler ( talk) 20:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I wrote that the file may originally have been scanned from a postcard; I didn't say that it was necessarily. In any event, Ellin Beltz deleted the file because you claimed in the file description that it was your "own work" [49], whereas she easily found earlier copies of the same file elsewhere online (not a new scan of the image). The same file also appears on various wiki mirrors. Middayexpress ( talk) 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
As I wrote from the first moments about my "own work", I am not experienced about Wikipedia because I am collaborating only since the end of last year (and one year and half after last supposed Brunodams's edits, not "a few months"!): that is why I "licensed the file for reuse under an Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International license". It was a mistake that indirectly shows that I am not Brunodam, who had a lot of knowledge about Wikipedia because he has been on Wikipedia since 2008 or before..... However, because I have a lot of work to do, I'll be back posting on Wikipedia only next week....I hope (but IMHO it will not happen) that Middayexpress will not write after me about the same photo/postcard -again and again and again and again- and will not post in a provocative way for the tenth or eleventh time the reference on tynipic image (see: [50]), as he always does while trying to have another of his "wiki-fights" (I remember that his talk page shows that he has had "fightings" with a lot of wikipedians and that he has collected by admins many blocks and menaces of blocks for his continuous edit-warring).-- Oldsettler ( talk) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Brunodam's last account was blocked in July 2013. That doesn't necessarily mean he stopped ip editing or socking in the interim. Interesting, though, how this is ostensibly the first encounter you and I have had, yet you seem to have a chip on your shoulder and claim to know a lot about me right down to my ethnic background and place of residence (none of which I shared). This doesn't at all help dispel the notion that you are indeed Brunodam. Neither does your focus on Italy's colonies in Africa during the Fascist period specifically (not so much the earlier aristocratic period or the later trusteeship period), as well your Italian-inflected English and apparent disdain for Muslims (right down to the same mispelling "moslem" as the Brunodam sock LittleTony - [51]). The fact that you uploaded a deleted file of uncertain copyright status that Brunodam had repeatedly attempted to upload, indicated that your father had taken it in 1940 while in Italian Africa, labeled it as your own work, and licensed the file for reuse as the copyright holder likewise cannot be chalked up to mere absentmindedness. Middayexpress ( talk) 19:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined - as all of the accounts and IP info in the archive are now stale. This will need to be based on behavioral evidence.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Middayexpress: @ Berean Hunter: I've just (globally) locked Oldsettler as a duck quacking so loudly. -- Vituzzu ( talk) 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Already tagged so closing.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    @ Berean Hunter: I've tagged some pages for db-5, as you can see different users already complained about their neutrality. -- Vituzzu ( talk) 19:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

27 July 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


I came across this account via the article for Roman cheese, which was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Velella because they were concerned that it did not expand on the pre-existing section at Cheese#History. I was inclined to agree with them since the article had multiple issues, as it was sorely undersourced with only two non-academic sources and it also made the claim that the Romans "were the first people to develop the first methods of making cheese". This latter claim is very easily contested by the claims made in the cheese history section and History of cheese, which state that there was evidence of cheesemaking that predated the Roman Empire. The article itself even disputes this claim in a later sentence that reads "Although it is true that cheese ("caseus" in Latin) is older than the Romans, the Romans were the first to perfect the art of making it."

I'm pointing out this aspect since a big calling card of Brunodam is that his articles tend to glorify the Roman Empire and are frequently subject to factual and historical errors.

In any case, I did not immediately associate this with Brunodam and I chose to move the article to the draftspace rather than outright delete it, in the hopes that Onomaticus could improve the article and run it through AfC. As I was doing this I noted that Onomaticus wrote a rather bad faith, ad hominem comment that accused Velella (or anyone that would delete the article) of abusing their power. I warned them of this in my comment on the draft talk page here. Their response was to berate me and Velella for not seeking them out before nominating the article for deletion or moving the page, giving off the impression that their permission was required before doing any of these actions. They also stuck by their accusations of abuse.

What made me somewhat suspicious was the sentence "Yes it is an abuse of power to just delete things moderators don't like, I have seen this countless times on Wikipedia." This made me check their edit history and sure enough, they'd only just begun editing in the beginning of July. I also noted that they had created the article for Christian Berbers, which was previously deleted last month as an article created by a Brunodam sock. The article is not identical in how it is written, but there are several marked similarities between the two in how things are phrased. According to this SPI opened in December 2011, Brunodam will try to somewhat rephrase his content in an attempt to avoid detection. Here's a comparison of two portions:

(old): The first appearance document that allows us to understand Christianity in Berber Africa is located in the Africa of the early Christians, before the year 180 AD: the "Acts of the Martyrs scillitans" . This is the record of attendance of a dozen Christians (called Scillitan Martyrs) in a village of Africa Proconsularis still not identified, in front of the proconsul of Africa.
(current): The first record of Christians in Africa is a document known as the "Acts of the Martyrs scillitans" dating from 180 AD. This documents a dozen Christian (known as Scillitan Martyrs) in a village of Africa Proconsularis, which is yet to be named, in front of the proconsul of Africa.

I also need to note that Onomaticus also created the article with the same "see also" section that was part of the speedied article and also chose to put the phrase "African Christianity" in quotations like the Brunodam sock did in their version.

Other than the above evidence, another thing that makes me believe that this is a new sock is that the account's first reaction was to accuse others of abuse. This is something that Brunodam socks have done in the past, as can be seen in the April 2015 SPI. I'll be honest - if Onomaticus hadn't been so uncivil on the draft talk page I probably wouldn't have investigated this at all. It was only because their tone and sense of ownership that I went any further with this.

I also need to note that a common issue with Brunodam is that he will misrepresent sources, changing the statements to serve the point he is trying to impart in the article. For example, this site writes that "It is quite possible that retired Roman soldiers, who quite frequently remained in the area they were once stationed, took up the trade of professional cheese-makers starting a new and lasting industry in the area." However in the article Onomaticus writes "Retired Roman soldiers set up cheese industries among the Roman Limes among the border". The article does not definitively assert that the retired Roman soldiers set up cheese industries, just said that it was extremely likely - which is not the same thing. The Nibble does the same thing, just says that it is likely and does not definitively state anything as 100% fact.

If this is determined to be Brunodam, then both the draft and the article for Christian Berbers will need to be deleted since Brunodam articles are extremely notorious for being erroneous. I'm going to e-mail Berean Hunter and Vituzzu about this since they are both more familiar with Brunodam, but I think that this is a WP:DUCK scenario here. It's extremely unlikely that someone would create an article with so many marked similarities and follow this up with an article that had errors so very common with Brunodam's articles. For anyone coming into this that is largely unfamiliar with the case you can read a general synopsis of some of his common editing habits on my talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • I'd recommend a check for sleepers, just to ensure that there are no other active accounts out there. I know that the older accounts are stale, but hopefully the one from April can be checked? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Vituzzu has stated that he doesn't believe that this is Brunodam and I'm inclined to trust him since he is more experienced with this user. However the similarities are similar enough to where this might be a case of meatpuppetry. I just am not comfortable with the similarities here, since it seems to be a pretty big coincidence. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:03, 27 July 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

  • Everything in the archive is  Stale, unfortunately. This will need to be decided on behaviour.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately, Vituzzu just says "it doesn't seem to be Brunpodam", but gives no indication why. On the other side, Tokyogirl79's detailed account above and my own investigation together show a considerable number of similarities. There are a few uses of identical wording, in a way which would be truly remarkable if it were two independent editors. (I have searched online to see if the same wording just happens to be common elsewhere, and the answer was "no".) It is true that there are also striking differences, but they may easily be deliberate attempts to make it look like a different editor: there is evidence that Brunodam has done that before. The similarities exist in different aspects of the editing: similar interests, similar point of view, similar use of language, etc. My conclusion is that the case for sockpuppetry is convincing, so I shall block the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 13:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

17 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


I don't know anything about user:Brunodam. I just checked the image Bkahina added in this (i'm talking about this map). It was created by user:Berberoots ( [52], [53]). The latter was a sockpuppet of Brunodam. So it's obvious that Bkahina is Brunodam's sockpuppet (as no one knows about this map + their interests are centered around "Roman-Moorish kingdoms" and "Mauro-Roman kingdom")‎. Regards Aṭlas ( talk) 23:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

( Personal attack removed) -- Bkahina ( talk) 00:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Removing personal attack -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Tagged and closing. GAB gab 00:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

03 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Suspicious behavior, reverting redirects on various North Africa-related articles in a pattern strikingly similar to Brunodam, including (but possibly not limited to) the articles Eritrean Italian, Castellum Tingitanum, Italians in Paraguay. signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • No comment technically, but as the IP hasn't edited in 10 days, there's nothing behaviorally to assess, so closing procedurally. Re-report for a behavioral investigation by a clerk or admin if disruption starts agains. TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

13 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

restoring articles frequently worked on by Brunodam puppets, I specifically came across them at Castellum Tingitanum signed, Rosguill talk 21:28, 13 May 2019 (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

27 August 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Extremely duck behavior at Treva and Capsa (Roman colonia). signed, Rosguill talk 05:27, 27 August 2019 (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

06 December 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Duck behavior at Capsa (Roman colonia), Benghasi, and a few other articles ( [54], [55]). signed, Rosguill talk 00:18, 6 December 2019 (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

  • Blocked, closing. GAB gab 00:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

30 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


An account that was created in 2007, but has been essentially dormant up until today, at which point they posted a massive 81k byte edit to convert the redirect History of Asmara into an article written an inappropriate tone. A lot of the content appears to be apologia for fascist Italy, including sentences such as Time and again, the Italian architects designed buildings that stood for progress. Not as clear cut of a duck case as other instances, so I'd like to get a checkuser to weigh in. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This case is  Stale. CU declined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Bbb23, the edits were made today, by a non-IP editor, what about this is stale? signed, Rosguill talk 00:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
The master and all socks are stale. We do not run checks against users with nothing to compare against.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
I think that means the ball's now back in your court Rosguill. You've been the most involved in identifying this sockmaster for the last couple of years. Cabayi ( talk) 20:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Cabayi, yeah, in this particular case I followed up with the editor and am reasonably satisfied that they are not Brunodam. While the article is a bit florid, it doesn't mince words in describing the less appealing aspects of fascist Italy's colonies, and the editor gave a plausible explanation for why the article was written the way it was. signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

19 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

SPA, who immediately is going to this page and continuously recreating. Along with another, who I'll add in a moment. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

 – ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: Well, there's almost no question the IPs reported here are the same person, they're in a shared /64. The SPI disruption filter hits appear to be false positives. Now, as for the substance...an IP from Florida with a strong interest in Fascist Italy? Sure looks like Brunodam. The /64 looks pretty stable, blocked six months. Closing. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply

24 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Repeating same edits as previous IP socks. Continuing to deny connection to sockmaster, as evident by edit summaries at Heliopolis in Phoenicia. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2021 (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

  • This IP (based on the previous blocks) is obviously extremely stable. As such a long block can be considered. As the last block was 6 months and the resumption of edits was almost immediate, I think we can block for much longer. As such I'm blocking for 12 months which is a doubling from the last block. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

28 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

More claims of redirects in target subject area being a mistake. Geolocated to same area as previous IP socks. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2021 (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

26 July 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Most of Fort44's article creations are articles that were previously created by sockpuppets of Brunodam and deleted via G5, including Camillo De Camillis, Ludovico Pollera, and Boura Wadi. There seems to be some attempts to conceal this as well by changing the title ( Ludovico Pollera was originally created as Pollera, Ludovico, and see Boura Wadi versus Wadi Boura). I believe the contents of several recreations (e.g., this revision of Boura Wadi) are identical or substantially similar to the deleted versions, since they are being flagged as copyvios of Wikipedia mirrors, but I can't view deleted articles so I can't confirm this. DanCherek ( talk) 21:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks Diannaa! I was going to ping you to this before you got to the CopyPatrol report but then something came up and it slipped my mind. I'm glad you found it anyway. DanCherek ( talk) 23:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Adding Oilkhan48; please see Pagus Augustus, with the inverted title to evade comparison with the G5'd Augustus Pagus. DanCherek ( talk) 03:34, 31 July 2021 (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

Boura Wadi and Wadi Boura are a match, and I already deleted it. Camillo De Camillis is very similar to the deleted version. The deleted version of Ludovico Pollera is not the same as the current version. But the deleted version of Pollera, Ludovico is a match for the deleted version of Ludovico Pollera and was deleted by me back in May as an unattributed copy. I think it's likely the same user. — Diannaa ( talk) 22:58, 27 July 2021‎ (UTC) reply

16 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Created Roman Augustus Pagus which I believe is largely identical to the G5'd Augustus Pagus, and edited templates like Template:Archaeological sites in Lebanon which Brunodam socks like Oilkhan48, Fort44, and 7elo0 also edited in the past. DanCherek ( talk) 21:40, 16 January 2022 (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

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Working from scraps of hints in the cuwiki notes and logs, Vietrese is  Possible to Brunodam but the data suck.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Taking off my CU goggles and replacing them with my standard-issue admin goggles, I can confirm that the current version of Roman Augustus Pagus is virtually identical to the version of Augustus Pagus which was created by 7elo0 back in 2018. Combined with the overlap on Template:Archaeological sites in Lebanon, that's plenty to block as suspected. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

21 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets


Same obsession with Italian colonization of Africa, same communication style, same geolocation as other IP socks of this user. The current activity is with regard to Gondrand massacre, where a range that is currently subject to a 1-year block for Brunodam socking ( 2601:58C:C080:8AA0:0:0:0:0/64) was previously blocked for making a racist attack back in 2020 (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1043#An instance of racial harassment / attack?). Judging by their recent activity, it seems that a somewhat broader range block may be necessary.

A casual glance at the short talk page Talk:Gondrand massacre should leave one in little doubt that the new IP commenting there is the same person as the currently blocked one who was commenting previously. Compare e.g.: [56] and [57] (currently blocked IP range) with [58] and [59] (new one). Note especially the liberal use of bolding and all-caps. The revdelled racist comment is here: [60].

Thanks y'all. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I didn't catch this before –– the new IP helpfully signed their latest comment "BD": [61], as did the currently blocked IP at one point in the past: [62]. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:41, 21 January 2022 (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

04 April 2022

Suspected sockpuppets


Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I am answering in the talkpage of Dogweller and Dancherek. My original essay is in "Academia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razednew2 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Taking this one step at a time, in 16 January 2022, I tagged Vietrese as suspected. There is now additional data which allows me to re-tag them as  Confirmed. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Razednew2 is  Confirmed  No sleepers immediately visible -- RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Just globally locked, now it's time of the (boring) process of removing any of its edits. Vituzzu ( talk) 07:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

05 September 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

I became suspicious of Ken93y after seeing they'd added apologia for Italian war crimes in Africa –– a major focus for Brunodam –– along with Brunodam's telltale use of the term "pinpoint". Compare this edit by Ken93y [69]

However it is noteworthy to pinpoint that Badoglio in his "memory" pinpointed that the story was totally invented for propaganda reasons against the Italians

with strikingly similar word choice by Brunodam socks, e.g. Razednew2 [70]

Additionally, it is noteworthy to pinpoint that the "Berytus Law School" was widely known in the Roman empire

or Oilkhan48 [71]

Historian Julien Aliquot pinpointed that the territory of Roman Berytus under Claudius reached the Bekaa valley

or the 2601:58C:C IP range [72]

The comments of Generalrelative (a black wikipedian, of course) are full of hate toward european colonists and the eritreans & somalians (who fought for their countries that were made FREE OF SLAVERY, thanks to the Italians - I want to pinpoint this accomplishment in case you don't know)

Unsurprisingly, the Ken93y account was created on 11 April 2022, just one week after Brunodam's most recent sock block –– though the account didn't make its first edit until over a year later (creating a user page saying Ken93y is a nice "name").

Thanks for giving this your attention. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • The accounts both used an IP that has a block log entry for block evasion related to this case. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  •  Blocked and tagged per CU results and behaviour. Closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 22:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brunodam/Archive&oldid=1175091599"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Brunodam

Brunodam ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date March 29 2009, 18:34 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by AlasdairGreen27 ( talk)


First, we need to tie the IP address to Brunodam. IP removing sock notices related to Bruno: [1] [2] [3] [4], and the IP quoting from Bruno's blog: [5] [6], and here is the IP editing the itwiki article on Pompeo D'Ambrosio, an article created by a Bruno sock about a family member: [7] [8] [9].

Next, Brunodam and his various socks have created a series of articles on alleged Italian populations in a variety of countries, to which Sabanglana has added Italian Ethiopians, and DuilioM has added Italian Somalians. The following is a list of overlapping article edits revealing the 'users' to be one and the same:

It is highly likely that, in addition to the IP address listed, an IP address of 4.231.xxx.xxx tracing to Broomfield, Colorado will show up, as this is Bruno's home IP.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Cunibertus

hi I'm a newbie here and I do not really understand what are you tellig gentlemen

as my knowledge of complex technical english and slang is also limited

I suppose it is right to replay here so I'll inform you I edited the italian ascari article as I neede to hyperlink it with articles I'm creating, and possibly to draw information from existing articles for my own.

I'm working at present on the irregular troops in the service of Italy, the so called "Bande" who is one of my many historical interests

and everyone on wiki could verify this

the ascari thing is related to that, I would also translate existing related material and articles from the italian wiki to the english one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunibertus ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

70.90.59.74

I am the one who has used 70.90.59.74. I have an IP with Earthlink; see:

Attention:

This IP address, 70.90.59.74, is registered to EarthLink, an Internet service provider through which thousands of individual users may connect to the internet. This IP may be randomly assigned to a different person when the current user disconnects. Warnings or messages left on this page may not be received by the intended user. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself.

I believe user:AlasdairGreen27 is often obsessed with sockpuppets of Brunodam or Pio or GiovanniGiove or other Italians who are against Sloveno-Croatians on Dalmatian/Istrian issues. Another example is the accusations against user:Romaioi. See: [25]. I am sure he (and his friends, like dictator Tito supporter user:DIREKTOR) will need some medical help (excuse my honesty) because - even banning Cunibertus, DuilioM, Sabanglana, Luigi28, Ragusino, D'Agro' and others - the obsession will keep going and going with many other Italians (who will be accused of sockpupperty in the next months and years) haunting him. And the obsession can become paranoia....I am an Istriano who has been following the debate against a group od Croats and Slovenians on the Italian Wikipedia. See: [26] and in english brunodam.blog.kataweb.it/2008/11/. Hope AlasdairGreen27 will not get "sick" with all the new sockpuppets he will find in the next months and years.........Primonino (of course, I will be accused to be another sockpuppet of Pio, GiovanniGiove, Brunodam or whoever, according to the "obsession/paranoia" of Alasdairgreen27).

P.S.: I forgot (as an example of what does the obsession of AlasdairGreen27 against normal Italian users) to add the ban of user: D'agro [27]. This ban has shocked many users of the Italian Wikipedia, like the "tricky" bans of user:Luigi 28 and user:Barba Nane who are two respected wikiusers of the it.wiki-- 207.69.137.36 ( talk) 04:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)(see my new IP earthlink address, totally new after 30 minutes only!). reply

DuilioM

I believe all this is INSANE. It reminds me the continuous problems with HACKERS from Russia and eastern Europe countries (like Croatia and Slovenia) who are stealing the IP of internet users. Here it is an example of a few months ago [28].

These Slav hackers know that it is impossible to do a CU in Wikipedia that can be 100% precise, because of IP changes in servers like Earthlink, use of different modems by the same person, or other reasons. With IP stolen and CU not 100% sure they play the game of suspition to get banned who they don't like, even if he is someone like me who doesn't write against Slav topics and doesn't do any vandalism. So, the cases of D'agro, Luigi 28, GiovanniGiove, Barba Nane, Brunodam, Ragusino and many more are astonishing proof of the mistakes done by the CU and the admins who are onesided against the Italians dealing with Dalmatian articles.

The result of all this: I am thinking of stopping my contributions to Wikipedia from today. In other words Wikipedia is being damaged by obsessed persons like AlasdairGreen27, who are turning this site a battleground for their nationalistic fights. To read his talk page is the equivalent to read a continuous request of CU, arbitrations and fights against Italians dealing with eastern Adriatic topics: as Primonino writes all this looks like obsession turning slowly to paranoia in the next months with new accusations of Italian users. Can he (and these hackers) be stopped? I doubt it, unless a huge scandal will rock the English Wikipedia and the main authorities will intervene. Indeed, as a consequence of all this, even in the It.Wiki is being created a group to fight for justice against the lies and tricks of user:AlasdairGreen27, user:DIREKTOR, user:Kubura, user:Zenanarh and others, as can be read here [29].

I am sure their group will get justice soon or later, and my case will be another they will use to obtain it. Sincerely, -- DuilioM ( talk) 15:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Sabanglana

Hey, I cannot even write my defense! Quickly (in less than a day, while in other cases the CU takes many days) all is done! Just now I open my computer and ----ZAC---I am banned! Well, what can I say?, this a RING, a SHAMEFUL RING that looks to me like a BALKAN MAFIA! Unbelievable that Nishkid24 adds two more users to be banned, like he were informed directly by the accuser Aladairgreen. May be he is part of the slavic group against we Italians in the english wiki, don't you agree? This is really really really INSANE. I write all this because, as Primonino and DuilioM and others in the it.wiki write, THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE IS JUST BEGINNING! and all this is going to be reported in the due place at the right moment.-- Sabanglana ( talk) 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

AlasdairGreen27 you personally attacked Cunibertus here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:DIREKTOR&diff=prev&oldid=279889841 -- 82.54.139.131 ( talk) 09:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

DuilioM is also in it.wiki: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:DuilioM. He can't be a Brunodam's Sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.147.132 ( talk) 16:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply


 Clerk endorsed under E rather than A - not arbcom sanctioned. Mayalld ( talk) 06:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk note: If this case is anything other than a good faith report, you can be sure that it will be discovered. Adding paragraphs of rants about the motives of the reporter just means that it will take longer to do so. In order to make processing of the case easier, lengthy diatribes will be removed to the talk page. Mayalld ( talk) 15:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply


Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following:
  1. Againstantism ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Sabanglana ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Right2 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. DuilioM ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

These all appear to be socks of Brunodam ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). The Brunodam IP that was CU'ed last year popped up again under these accounts – it can't be a coincidence. Cunibertus ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Red X Unrelated. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

"Appear" is not a sure accusation. A "coincidence" cannot rule a sure accusation, in any court of the western world. And the CU "popped up" can be the usual hacker's action. We need REAL justice in wikipedia! Nishkid, are you of Slavic roots? It is very strange that you ADD even two other names to the accusation (Againstantism and Right2).-- DuilioM ( talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date June 5 2009, 23:12 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by AlasdairGreen27


A blatant case of ban evasion. Bruno was banned [30] for socking and is again back now. Biltmore has turned up to reinstate and edit an article created by Bruno [31] that had been subsequently merged. The related IP is known to be one of Bruno's, and was fooling around with the merge vote just prior to Biltmore's arrival [32] [33]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 23:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply


very  Likely -- Luk talk 07:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • I was just about to endorse, but will note here that cu Avraham has done so. Nathan T 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions

The account is blocked for an indefinite period. The IP's block will last for two weeks. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  08:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld ( talk) 11:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply



Report date August 25 2009, 12:12 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by DIREKTOR

This user is likely a sockpuppet of one of the many sockpuppeteers I assisted in uncovering (mostly Italian-based). The account of this supposedly "new" user was devoted to futile attempts at getting me banned at WP:NPOV/N, WP:HD, at User talk:Toddst1, WP:SPI/Rex Dominator, etc. The "new" user was effectively following me around and badmouthing me everywhere I go.

The interests of User:Sir Floyd are also revealing: the few edits not intended to bring about my block were devoted to controversial Dalmatia articles, reminiscent of the old Dalmatia edit-wars. [34] When User:Sir Floyd's very familiar "English" to the mix, I believe I can objectively say that there is little doubt this user is just another in a long, long line of socks from the banned group of Italian users. The most active of these sockpuppeteers being User:PIO/ Luigi 28 and User:Brunodam/ Marygiove. With the former's IP range currently blocked after another sock ( User:Ducatista2) was found, User:Brunodam/ Marygiove seems most likely, but I'd also like to request a more thorough checkuser to see if there are any other connections (as one can never be 100% sure which one of those guys resurfaced on enWiki). Thanks, -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 12:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
 Clerk endorsed — Jake Wartenberg 14:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 2 2010, 08:51 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Tim Song

Filing empty case per CU request. Tim Song ( talk) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: All suspected socks are confirmed to be the same user per Jpgordon ( talk · contribs). All already blocked and retagged as socks of Brunodam. Tim Song ( talk) 08:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
28 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

[35] -- DQ (t) (e) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (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
03 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

I've just blocked this account on it.wiki as another sock of Brunodam's, cfr, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam/Archive Vituzzu ( talk) 11:15, 3 April 2011 (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
  • information Administrator note CU won't do much here as we have nothing to compare this account to. But I've blocked it per the it.wiki block. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply
21 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~" 

Vituzzu (
talk) 20:58, 21 April 2011 (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
24 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~" 

Vituzzu (
talk) 10:40, 24 April 2011 (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 usual sweep, please. T. Canens ( talk) 00:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    •  Confirmed the account and blocked some IPs, but I don't see any other recent accounts. Dominic· t 06:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC) reply
11 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

After reading the page Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brunodam the description of the user's contributions seems to match 1)he seems to know already fairly well how wikipedia works 2)he focuses on Italian colonialism topics. The last avatar of this user seems to be OneDalm0 blocked in march 2011 although I couldn't find the exact rationale. N.B. I have a little debate with this user right now, I would like to answer to his points but want to make sure first that I'm not waisting my time Kimdime ( talk) 12:13, 11 June 2011 (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

 Confirmed that 4tommy ( talk · contribs) and Libyancitizen2 ( talk · contribs) are matches to 2forever ( talk · contribs), a previously blocked sock. TN X Man 13:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, TXS I don't know where the block of those users should be asked ?-- Kimdime ( talk) 14:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply
12 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

the same address in Florida that has intermittently caused problems on the Thornton expedition article and the same use of words and edit pattern The mayor of Yurp ( talk) 02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Only stupid persons, like Brutaldeluxe, can believe they can hit for months and years and never "get back" something... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.39.153 ( talk) 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

  • 98.77.39.153 should be blocked for disruption regardless of this SPI. Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia... Them From Space 02:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
I have done more than 16,000 contributions to wikipedia in the last 5 years, with many IPs and usernames. And I have NEVER done vandalism. But this time is different, because I hate a guy like this rat named Brutaldeluxe that writes in his userpage that Italy is the land of the "Cachi". This literally means Italy is a "cacata" (in Italian this word means "Sh..t"). What would you do, Themfromspacer, if somebody writes the same of your country? This rat only attacks italian articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.39.153 ( talk) 02:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
12 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

See my talk page history The mayor of Yurp ( talk) 23:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined. CU is still unnecessary here. Muzemike redid the block on 98.77.0.0/17, and the IP falls in that range. We're done here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC) reply
14 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Same editing pattern and writing style, very similar name to User:NBDA, Brunodam's sock creator of Italian Spahis. The mayor of Yurp ( talk) 18:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Wow...this is simply ridiculous: WHO REALLY CARES? I think en.wiki is the refuge of CACATEmen like Brutaldeluxe. Nmdr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.208.127.65 ( talk) 17:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC) reply


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged (not checked). Elockid ( Talk) 23:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply

31 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Went straight to reinstate images favoured by a previous sockpuppet on the Italian irredentism in Corsica article. Typical Brunodam message on user page. The mayor of Yurp ( talk) 03:21, 31 October 2011 (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
13 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

The article Gerisa (Libya) looks like a trivially modified previously-deleted Ghirza (as of 6 January 2011, at 23:19) by User:OneDalm0. Certainly looks to me like another version of Brunodam, but I'd prefer if someone else checks it, too. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:23, 13 November 2011 (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

(Though next time it should be posted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam itself, doesn't matter right now).  Confirmed, along with 2012veritas ( talk · contribs); both accounts indefinitely blocked. – MuZemike 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC) reply

13 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

The article Venetian & Italian cultural presence in Dalmatia looks like a trivially modified previously-deleted Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia. Certainly looks to me like another version of Brunodam, but I'd prefer if someone else checks it, too. The anonymous edits look indicative of a coverup, too. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:03, 13 December 2011 (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
  • Huge sections that match the old article, but can we triple check and look for other guys? -- DQ (t) (e) 11:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed as Brunodam:

Both accounts have been globally locked by a Steward. – MuZemike 23:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

12 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Margate92 ( talk · contribs) has recreated Territorio Sahara Libico as Southern Territory of Libyan Sahara; the former article was deleted per CSD g5 as a contribution of a community-banned user ( Brunodam ( talk · contribs)). If this is a good-faith contribution, I'd like to restore the deleted article and perform a history merge for attribution purposes, but Joy ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) requested that before I do so I request checkuser as this is apparently common behavior for Brunodam's sockpuppets. Please let me know if any further evidence is needed or I've done anything procedurally incorrect; I believe this meets criteria E ( block log, recreation of Brunodam's article). Thanks, — madman 05:04, 12 February 2012 (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
  •  Confirmed:
29 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Compare bottom sections of:

This seems like a slightly modified Brunodam modus operandi - new account that submits a pre-written article at a title that has a small difference from the old title where we had seen him before. This time he went through the trouble of actually rewriting the bulk of the article, but the identical references still give him away. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The following accounts are  Confirmed:

Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC) reply

26 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Re-creation of Maria Pasquinelli under Pasquinelli, a topic only Brunodam has bothered with, and largely typical evasion method (different title). Joy [shallot] ( talk) 07:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, the content isn't largely identical like the ones before. Maybe Bruno has simply evolved and has started throwing us curveballs? Have you two examined his prior work, in general? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: Comparing the deleted version of the article to this version, they are very different in content and style. I'm not convinced this isn't a coincidence based on a single edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  •  Additional information needed - I have to agree with Dennis, we need more of a connection to endorse. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk endorsed - I'm endorsing. Comparing the formatting of the new and old versions, and taking into account the modified MO noted in the last SPI case, I think there's at least a reasonable likelihood that these two are the same; not enough for DUCK but enough for a check. T. Canens ( talk) 08:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • It's  Possible - the last batch appears to have edited entirely from a public location, and this is another public location in the same area. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 00:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Closing. No prejudice against reopening if more evidence surfaces. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
26 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


I already locked RossanaBianchi, I'm wondering how many unknown socks are yet to be found Vituzzu ( talk) 23:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Thank you. Binksternet ( talk) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think it's necessary or helpful to tag IPs like those if they weren't used for edits where users may want or need to check who made the edits. With the above it's obvious from the context who made the edits. Amalthea 19:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Okay. I was previously under the impression that an exhaustive list would be helpful. Binksternet ( talk) 19:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
It's helpful to list them here if they are from a new range (and those four are in the same range as the one reported one above). I mostly wanted to say that tagging the user pages with a sock tag was not really necessary here. Amalthea 19:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Matching named accounts I can find are:

Not sure yet what I'll do with the numerous anon accounts. I could release them per WMF privacy policy and our checkuser policy, but it may be easiest if I just revert them myself. Amalthea 08:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Can you post them on checkusers' mailing list? Thank you! -- Vituzzu ( talk) 14:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
(Un-closing case.) I've alerted Amalthea to Vituzzu's request. AGK [•] 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I've actually already sent Vituzzu a mail about it. Amalthea 13:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply
22 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Pretty much typical Brunodam style. [36]: editing one of "his" articles to remove problem tags while making seemingly random additions (to keep the recent changes line summary green I guess?), while apparently accusing User:Drpickem of "hate" in the edit summary, ignoring the simple fact that that user wasn't the one who reverted them previously, rather it was User:Amalthea. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:06, 22 October 2012 (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
29 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Topic of editing is basically Italian irredentism, but I can't find this particular netblock referenced in the categories, so I'm looking for any sort of corroboration before acting. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 11:44, 29 November 2012 (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
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - CUs do not usually link named accounts to IPs. This will have to be determined based on behavioural evidence. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: There isn't enough evidence presented in this case. Feel free to re-open if you have more evidence to present. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 18:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC) reply
10 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Another user just noticed that Norma Cossetto had been re-created at the name and surname inverted. I had removed the old article because it was made by a sockpuppet of Ragusino ( talk · contribs), but re-creations renamed to try to avoid scrutiny are typical Brunodam MO. I reported MASran previously for such a re-creation of a Brunodam article. It could theoretically be one and the same public location being used by two separate sets of people with the same particular POV. Or leprechauns :) Joy [shallot] ( talk) 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Looks likely. MASran carries the evolving modus operandi of Brunodam; slight changes to article titles, thorough changes to article text, but still the concentration on typical topics of interest. Binksternet ( talk) 00:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • no Declined because all named accounts except MASran has gone stale. CU would not yield anything useful; you will have to use behavior to judge. Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It's not immediately clear to me that they are related, and with the lack of CU evidence and a relative lack of recent disruption, I'm marking as closed unless there is an objection. NativeForeigner Talk 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
12 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Brunodam is found of Italian colonialism, as such, he regularly reverts the redirect on Fourth Shore (see history). Enok did such a thing [37]. No one would do that except from Brunodam. To take this step, you have to 1)know about the subject 2) know that such a page existed previously and was redirected. Anyway, I am not the only one to make connections between this user and Brunodam, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enok#Brunodam.27s_content and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enok#Republic_of_Ragusa . Enok was blocked [38] 3 times for edit waring, something that remind us of Brunodam bad temper-- Kimdime ( talk) 09:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

If this user is not of my own city, it will be quite easy for administrators to confirm my uniqueness. I also reverted your improper edit. -- Enok ( talk) 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined - This user's account is older than the puppet master and he was active while Checkusers have previously looked for sleeper accounts for this puppetmaster, yet his name didn't pop up. The evidence presented isn't sufficient to warrant a CU, and the prior investigations make a link highly unlikely. As this is just speculation, I'm closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply
05 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

CW-LTA Brunodam (I'd say DUCK since one of the IP, as usual, wrote a message on the talkpage of the registered user), -- Vituzzu ( talk) 18:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Vituzzu ( talk) 18:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

As wrote user:Enok, when accused to be a sock of this "Brunodam" last May, I want to repeat the same: If this user is not of my own city, it will be quite easy for administrators to confirm my uniqueness. To judge only "based on behavior" is not right, please. If somebody wants my data, I'll be more than happy to submit it.-- Juror5 ( talk) 20:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Since this case has involved long-term cross-wiki abuse in the past, I ran checks on this account. Unfortunately, since they are editing from public computers, the CU data was unhelpful. Based on the behavior, though, this is certainly Brunodam. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 18:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: I'm inclined to agree. Please G5/revert all of the contributions by these users if they are determined to be socks. ( CSD G5) NativeForeigner Talk 17:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I've deleted/reverted everything with the exception of his edits to Gaius_Petronius. I think they may not be POV driven but I'd like somebody else to take a look and make a judgment call before it is closed. NativeForeigner Talk 16:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know enough about the subject matter to make that determination but we do need to close this case. If necessary, a note may be left on the article talk page for a POV check. Closing as we seem to be finished here.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply
16 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


New account created a few months ago. Same peculiar interests and edits as Brunodam, which are centered on Fascist-period Italy and its colonial territories. Uploaded File:Italian Ascari.jpg, a repeatedly deleted file that NBDA ("New Brunodam") and various other Brunodam socks had previously uploaded as File:Ascari. Also claims that his father originally shot the image in 1940 while in Italian Africa, and that it is now on his property ("photo done by my father in 1940 while he was in Italian Africa, now on my property"). Additionally, he licensed the file for reuse under an Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International license, asserting that he is "the copyright holder of this work" [39]. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I am not Brunodam. I am a 66 years floridian, whose father did military service in Africa during WWII. I am ready to show proofs of this if requested. -- Oldsettler ( talk) 19:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I want to add that I wrote a lot on wiki as an IP from public libraries where I live and that, yes, I wrote on something (looking at the "user compare report") similar to what wrote in 2008 the brunodam, but he did this 7 years ago.....and many other users did the same on the same articles....anyway, if the checkuser wants I am ready to give him my phone in order to talk with him personally. Sincerely.-- Oldsettler ( talk) 20:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I have checked the photo and I have seen that it has been taken from a postcard showing "Italian Ascari". My father evidently did a "reduced" photo of the center of the postcard. That means that the postcard could have been owned by others: this explains the file:Ascari deleted years ago and posted on commons by other wiki users. Of course, if requested, I can show the photo "on my hand" (I can put it on Commons). Sincerely,-- Oldsettler ( talk) 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Actually, Brunodam's last socks were blocked in summer 2013, a few months before you registered this account in late 2014. You also wrote on the original file description page (before it too was again deleted [40]) that your father himself took the photo in 1940 when he was in Italian Africa, and that the photo is now on your property. Additionally, you licensed the file for reuse under an Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International license, asserting that you are "the copyright holder of this work". So it's a bit late to now be claiming that the image was actually from a postcard [41]. Middayexpress ( talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
As said before, I am not experienced about Wikipedia because I am collaborating only since the end of last year (and one year and half after last supposed Brunodams's edits, not "a few months"!): that is why I "licensed the file for reuse under an Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International license". It was a mistake that indirectly shows that I am not Brunodam, who had a lot of knowledge about Wikipedia because he has been on Wikipedia since 2008 or before. Anyway, I am going to appeal in future the "erase" of the postcard/photo from commons because it has obviously been done 75 years ago, while it seems "someone" mistakenly thinks the photo came from a blog started only in 2011.(see: [42] ; [43]. BTW -because of what he is doing to me- I am starting to investigate in full detail who is this Middayexpress: I am astonished by how "deep" is his knowledge on Somalian terrorism ( Al-Shabaab, etc........)-- Oldsettler ( talk) 13:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Hey, I'm just going by what I see as a longtime member of the various Horn of Africa WikiProjects. You re-uploaded a deleted file of uncertain copyright status that Brunodam had repeatedly attempted to upload, indicated that your father had taken it in 1940 while in Italian Africa, and licensed the file for reuse as the copyright holder. It wasn't a new scan from a postcard either, but rather the exact same file. This is why identical copies of the file were easily located elsewhere online (e.g. [44]). One can't simply pick random old files off of the internet and then claim them as being copyright free. The files could've originally been published in a copyrighted magazine for all one knows; that is why the original source and author must be indicated per policy. If you had obtained the file off of the internet, it would've been best to just admit this and move on instead of insisting that your father himself had taken the photo or whatever. Those are soldiers in the file, meaning it was taken in some sort of military setting; viz., the East Africa Campaign according to that forum link [45]. Middayexpress ( talk) 19:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The malignity of this Middayexpress is unbelievable. Why against me? I have never done anything with him or against him, but -after obtaining to erase my dad's photo- now attacks me continuously repeating the same accusations again and again and again with his typical "byzantine phrases" full of the same things. I have read his 56 archives and I have found that he is a Somalian living in the UK (probably in the London area full of supporters of ISIS: read [46]) and that he has had "fightings" with many wikipedians. He has collected many blocks and menaces of blocks for his continuous edit-warrings and seems to promote moslem POVs in a way that remembers the religious fanatism: most important to me, he seems to "hate" colonialism and western colonialists, so probably he identifies me with the Italians who colonized his Somalia....and this can explain his attacks against me....But I sincerely have an high esteem of Somalian people, thanks to my dad who used to remember me when I was a child that Prince Luigi Amedeo, Duke of the Abruzzi wanted to be buried in Somalia because "Somalis have a very good heart, not the hypocrital one of the Turin aristocracy". But this Middaexpress does not seem a Somalian: he is full of hate! Anyway, I want to repeat to the admins doing behavior investigation that I can show the photo "on my hand" (I can put it on Commons). The photo in question is not the "exact file...(because I) re-uploaded a deleted file of uncertain copyright status that Brunodam had repeatedly attempted to upload", as with malice this Middayexpress writes. The original postcard -done 75 years ago!- can be seen here in this Italian website ( [47]), with the words "truppe ascari di fanteria". Sincerely, and for the last time -- Oldsettler ( talk) 13:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

There's no point in employing ad hominem. I haven't spoken ill of you personally much less indicated my ethnic background nor where I reside, so you're grasping at straws. What is certain is that the image at hand is indeed the exact same file that Brunodam repeatedly tried to upload, not a new scan from a postcard (though the file may originally have been scanned from a postcard by Brunodam). This is why it appears on various wiki mirror sites such as wikia.com, as well as the letruppecoloniali blog above [48]. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Deus laudetur! Finally Middayexpress admits the existence of the postcard.....and the possibility that "the file may originally have been scanned from a postcard by Brunodam".....OK, that's a first step. Now let's "put a feet on the moon" and imagine a further step: Brunodam has copied from the same exact file -originated from a postcard, from which my dad did a central photo (or even there was a postcard with only the central section)- that I have used to create my file (File:Italian_Ascari.jpg). In this case Brunodam has copied the photo that has copied my father original. The possibilities here are endless and we can finish discussing to the infinite, as everybody can understand. Anyway, allow me to remember and to repeat to the admins doing behavior investigation that I can show the photo "on my hand" (I can put it on Commons). This is a real proof, not based on "infinite" thinking and suppositions.-- Oldsettler ( talk) 20:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I wrote that the file may originally have been scanned from a postcard; I didn't say that it was necessarily. In any event, Ellin Beltz deleted the file because you claimed in the file description that it was your "own work" [49], whereas she easily found earlier copies of the same file elsewhere online (not a new scan of the image). The same file also appears on various wiki mirrors. Middayexpress ( talk) 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
As I wrote from the first moments about my "own work", I am not experienced about Wikipedia because I am collaborating only since the end of last year (and one year and half after last supposed Brunodams's edits, not "a few months"!): that is why I "licensed the file for reuse under an Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International license". It was a mistake that indirectly shows that I am not Brunodam, who had a lot of knowledge about Wikipedia because he has been on Wikipedia since 2008 or before..... However, because I have a lot of work to do, I'll be back posting on Wikipedia only next week....I hope (but IMHO it will not happen) that Middayexpress will not write after me about the same photo/postcard -again and again and again and again- and will not post in a provocative way for the tenth or eleventh time the reference on tynipic image (see: [50]), as he always does while trying to have another of his "wiki-fights" (I remember that his talk page shows that he has had "fightings" with a lot of wikipedians and that he has collected by admins many blocks and menaces of blocks for his continuous edit-warring).-- Oldsettler ( talk) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Brunodam's last account was blocked in July 2013. That doesn't necessarily mean he stopped ip editing or socking in the interim. Interesting, though, how this is ostensibly the first encounter you and I have had, yet you seem to have a chip on your shoulder and claim to know a lot about me right down to my ethnic background and place of residence (none of which I shared). This doesn't at all help dispel the notion that you are indeed Brunodam. Neither does your focus on Italy's colonies in Africa during the Fascist period specifically (not so much the earlier aristocratic period or the later trusteeship period), as well your Italian-inflected English and apparent disdain for Muslims (right down to the same mispelling "moslem" as the Brunodam sock LittleTony - [51]). The fact that you uploaded a deleted file of uncertain copyright status that Brunodam had repeatedly attempted to upload, indicated that your father had taken it in 1940 while in Italian Africa, labeled it as your own work, and licensed the file for reuse as the copyright holder likewise cannot be chalked up to mere absentmindedness. Middayexpress ( talk) 19:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined - as all of the accounts and IP info in the archive are now stale. This will need to be based on behavioral evidence.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Middayexpress: @ Berean Hunter: I've just (globally) locked Oldsettler as a duck quacking so loudly. -- Vituzzu ( talk) 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Already tagged so closing.
     —  Berean Hunter (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    @ Berean Hunter: I've tagged some pages for db-5, as you can see different users already complained about their neutrality. -- Vituzzu ( talk) 19:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

27 July 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


I came across this account via the article for Roman cheese, which was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Velella because they were concerned that it did not expand on the pre-existing section at Cheese#History. I was inclined to agree with them since the article had multiple issues, as it was sorely undersourced with only two non-academic sources and it also made the claim that the Romans "were the first people to develop the first methods of making cheese". This latter claim is very easily contested by the claims made in the cheese history section and History of cheese, which state that there was evidence of cheesemaking that predated the Roman Empire. The article itself even disputes this claim in a later sentence that reads "Although it is true that cheese ("caseus" in Latin) is older than the Romans, the Romans were the first to perfect the art of making it."

I'm pointing out this aspect since a big calling card of Brunodam is that his articles tend to glorify the Roman Empire and are frequently subject to factual and historical errors.

In any case, I did not immediately associate this with Brunodam and I chose to move the article to the draftspace rather than outright delete it, in the hopes that Onomaticus could improve the article and run it through AfC. As I was doing this I noted that Onomaticus wrote a rather bad faith, ad hominem comment that accused Velella (or anyone that would delete the article) of abusing their power. I warned them of this in my comment on the draft talk page here. Their response was to berate me and Velella for not seeking them out before nominating the article for deletion or moving the page, giving off the impression that their permission was required before doing any of these actions. They also stuck by their accusations of abuse.

What made me somewhat suspicious was the sentence "Yes it is an abuse of power to just delete things moderators don't like, I have seen this countless times on Wikipedia." This made me check their edit history and sure enough, they'd only just begun editing in the beginning of July. I also noted that they had created the article for Christian Berbers, which was previously deleted last month as an article created by a Brunodam sock. The article is not identical in how it is written, but there are several marked similarities between the two in how things are phrased. According to this SPI opened in December 2011, Brunodam will try to somewhat rephrase his content in an attempt to avoid detection. Here's a comparison of two portions:

(old): The first appearance document that allows us to understand Christianity in Berber Africa is located in the Africa of the early Christians, before the year 180 AD: the "Acts of the Martyrs scillitans" . This is the record of attendance of a dozen Christians (called Scillitan Martyrs) in a village of Africa Proconsularis still not identified, in front of the proconsul of Africa.
(current): The first record of Christians in Africa is a document known as the "Acts of the Martyrs scillitans" dating from 180 AD. This documents a dozen Christian (known as Scillitan Martyrs) in a village of Africa Proconsularis, which is yet to be named, in front of the proconsul of Africa.

I also need to note that Onomaticus also created the article with the same "see also" section that was part of the speedied article and also chose to put the phrase "African Christianity" in quotations like the Brunodam sock did in their version.

Other than the above evidence, another thing that makes me believe that this is a new sock is that the account's first reaction was to accuse others of abuse. This is something that Brunodam socks have done in the past, as can be seen in the April 2015 SPI. I'll be honest - if Onomaticus hadn't been so uncivil on the draft talk page I probably wouldn't have investigated this at all. It was only because their tone and sense of ownership that I went any further with this.

I also need to note that a common issue with Brunodam is that he will misrepresent sources, changing the statements to serve the point he is trying to impart in the article. For example, this site writes that "It is quite possible that retired Roman soldiers, who quite frequently remained in the area they were once stationed, took up the trade of professional cheese-makers starting a new and lasting industry in the area." However in the article Onomaticus writes "Retired Roman soldiers set up cheese industries among the Roman Limes among the border". The article does not definitively assert that the retired Roman soldiers set up cheese industries, just said that it was extremely likely - which is not the same thing. The Nibble does the same thing, just says that it is likely and does not definitively state anything as 100% fact.

If this is determined to be Brunodam, then both the draft and the article for Christian Berbers will need to be deleted since Brunodam articles are extremely notorious for being erroneous. I'm going to e-mail Berean Hunter and Vituzzu about this since they are both more familiar with Brunodam, but I think that this is a WP:DUCK scenario here. It's extremely unlikely that someone would create an article with so many marked similarities and follow this up with an article that had errors so very common with Brunodam's articles. For anyone coming into this that is largely unfamiliar with the case you can read a general synopsis of some of his common editing habits on my talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply

  • I'd recommend a check for sleepers, just to ensure that there are no other active accounts out there. I know that the older accounts are stale, but hopefully the one from April can be checked? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Vituzzu has stated that he doesn't believe that this is Brunodam and I'm inclined to trust him since he is more experienced with this user. However the similarities are similar enough to where this might be a case of meatpuppetry. I just am not comfortable with the similarities here, since it seems to be a pretty big coincidence. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:03, 27 July 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

  • Everything in the archive is  Stale, unfortunately. This will need to be decided on behaviour.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately, Vituzzu just says "it doesn't seem to be Brunpodam", but gives no indication why. On the other side, Tokyogirl79's detailed account above and my own investigation together show a considerable number of similarities. There are a few uses of identical wording, in a way which would be truly remarkable if it were two independent editors. (I have searched online to see if the same wording just happens to be common elsewhere, and the answer was "no".) It is true that there are also striking differences, but they may easily be deliberate attempts to make it look like a different editor: there is evidence that Brunodam has done that before. The similarities exist in different aspects of the editing: similar interests, similar point of view, similar use of language, etc. My conclusion is that the case for sockpuppetry is convincing, so I shall block the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 13:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC) reply

17 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


I don't know anything about user:Brunodam. I just checked the image Bkahina added in this (i'm talking about this map). It was created by user:Berberoots ( [52], [53]). The latter was a sockpuppet of Brunodam. So it's obvious that Bkahina is Brunodam's sockpuppet (as no one knows about this map + their interests are centered around "Roman-Moorish kingdoms" and "Mauro-Roman kingdom")‎. Regards Aṭlas ( talk) 23:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

( Personal attack removed) -- Bkahina ( talk) 00:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Removing personal attack -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Tagged and closing. GAB gab 00:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

03 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Suspicious behavior, reverting redirects on various North Africa-related articles in a pattern strikingly similar to Brunodam, including (but possibly not limited to) the articles Eritrean Italian, Castellum Tingitanum, Italians in Paraguay. signed, Rosguill talk 00:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • No comment technically, but as the IP hasn't edited in 10 days, there's nothing behaviorally to assess, so closing procedurally. Re-report for a behavioral investigation by a clerk or admin if disruption starts agains. TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply

13 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

restoring articles frequently worked on by Brunodam puppets, I specifically came across them at Castellum Tingitanum signed, Rosguill talk 21:28, 13 May 2019 (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

27 August 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Extremely duck behavior at Treva and Capsa (Roman colonia). signed, Rosguill talk 05:27, 27 August 2019 (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

06 December 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Duck behavior at Capsa (Roman colonia), Benghasi, and a few other articles ( [54], [55]). signed, Rosguill talk 00:18, 6 December 2019 (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

  • Blocked, closing. GAB gab 00:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

30 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


An account that was created in 2007, but has been essentially dormant up until today, at which point they posted a massive 81k byte edit to convert the redirect History of Asmara into an article written an inappropriate tone. A lot of the content appears to be apologia for fascist Italy, including sentences such as Time and again, the Italian architects designed buildings that stood for progress. Not as clear cut of a duck case as other instances, so I'd like to get a checkuser to weigh in. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This case is  Stale. CU declined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Bbb23, the edits were made today, by a non-IP editor, what about this is stale? signed, Rosguill talk 00:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
The master and all socks are stale. We do not run checks against users with nothing to compare against.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
I think that means the ball's now back in your court Rosguill. You've been the most involved in identifying this sockmaster for the last couple of years. Cabayi ( talk) 20:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Cabayi, yeah, in this particular case I followed up with the editor and am reasonably satisfied that they are not Brunodam. While the article is a bit florid, it doesn't mince words in describing the less appealing aspects of fascist Italy's colonies, and the editor gave a plausible explanation for why the article was written the way it was. signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

19 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

SPA, who immediately is going to this page and continuously recreating. Along with another, who I'll add in a moment. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

 – ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: Well, there's almost no question the IPs reported here are the same person, they're in a shared /64. The SPI disruption filter hits appear to be false positives. Now, as for the substance...an IP from Florida with a strong interest in Fascist Italy? Sure looks like Brunodam. The /64 looks pretty stable, blocked six months. Closing. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply

24 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Repeating same edits as previous IP socks. Continuing to deny connection to sockmaster, as evident by edit summaries at Heliopolis in Phoenicia. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2021 (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

  • This IP (based on the previous blocks) is obviously extremely stable. As such a long block can be considered. As the last block was 6 months and the resumption of edits was almost immediate, I think we can block for much longer. As such I'm blocking for 12 months which is a doubling from the last block. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

28 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

More claims of redirects in target subject area being a mistake. Geolocated to same area as previous IP socks. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2021 (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

26 July 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Most of Fort44's article creations are articles that were previously created by sockpuppets of Brunodam and deleted via G5, including Camillo De Camillis, Ludovico Pollera, and Boura Wadi. There seems to be some attempts to conceal this as well by changing the title ( Ludovico Pollera was originally created as Pollera, Ludovico, and see Boura Wadi versus Wadi Boura). I believe the contents of several recreations (e.g., this revision of Boura Wadi) are identical or substantially similar to the deleted versions, since they are being flagged as copyvios of Wikipedia mirrors, but I can't view deleted articles so I can't confirm this. DanCherek ( talk) 21:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks Diannaa! I was going to ping you to this before you got to the CopyPatrol report but then something came up and it slipped my mind. I'm glad you found it anyway. DanCherek ( talk) 23:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Adding Oilkhan48; please see Pagus Augustus, with the inverted title to evade comparison with the G5'd Augustus Pagus. DanCherek ( talk) 03:34, 31 July 2021 (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

Boura Wadi and Wadi Boura are a match, and I already deleted it. Camillo De Camillis is very similar to the deleted version. The deleted version of Ludovico Pollera is not the same as the current version. But the deleted version of Pollera, Ludovico is a match for the deleted version of Ludovico Pollera and was deleted by me back in May as an unattributed copy. I think it's likely the same user. — Diannaa ( talk) 22:58, 27 July 2021‎ (UTC) reply

16 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Created Roman Augustus Pagus which I believe is largely identical to the G5'd Augustus Pagus, and edited templates like Template:Archaeological sites in Lebanon which Brunodam socks like Oilkhan48, Fort44, and 7elo0 also edited in the past. DanCherek ( talk) 21:40, 16 January 2022 (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

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Working from scraps of hints in the cuwiki notes and logs, Vietrese is  Possible to Brunodam but the data suck.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Taking off my CU goggles and replacing them with my standard-issue admin goggles, I can confirm that the current version of Roman Augustus Pagus is virtually identical to the version of Augustus Pagus which was created by 7elo0 back in 2018. Combined with the overlap on Template:Archaeological sites in Lebanon, that's plenty to block as suspected. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

21 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets


Same obsession with Italian colonization of Africa, same communication style, same geolocation as other IP socks of this user. The current activity is with regard to Gondrand massacre, where a range that is currently subject to a 1-year block for Brunodam socking ( 2601:58C:C080:8AA0:0:0:0:0/64) was previously blocked for making a racist attack back in 2020 (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1043#An instance of racial harassment / attack?). Judging by their recent activity, it seems that a somewhat broader range block may be necessary.

A casual glance at the short talk page Talk:Gondrand massacre should leave one in little doubt that the new IP commenting there is the same person as the currently blocked one who was commenting previously. Compare e.g.: [56] and [57] (currently blocked IP range) with [58] and [59] (new one). Note especially the liberal use of bolding and all-caps. The revdelled racist comment is here: [60].

Thanks y'all. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I didn't catch this before –– the new IP helpfully signed their latest comment "BD": [61], as did the currently blocked IP at one point in the past: [62]. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:41, 21 January 2022 (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

04 April 2022

Suspected sockpuppets


Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I am answering in the talkpage of Dogweller and Dancherek. My original essay is in "Academia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razednew2 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Taking this one step at a time, in 16 January 2022, I tagged Vietrese as suspected. There is now additional data which allows me to re-tag them as  Confirmed. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Razednew2 is  Confirmed  No sleepers immediately visible -- RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Just globally locked, now it's time of the (boring) process of removing any of its edits. Vituzzu ( talk) 07:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

05 September 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

I became suspicious of Ken93y after seeing they'd added apologia for Italian war crimes in Africa –– a major focus for Brunodam –– along with Brunodam's telltale use of the term "pinpoint". Compare this edit by Ken93y [69]

However it is noteworthy to pinpoint that Badoglio in his "memory" pinpointed that the story was totally invented for propaganda reasons against the Italians

with strikingly similar word choice by Brunodam socks, e.g. Razednew2 [70]

Additionally, it is noteworthy to pinpoint that the "Berytus Law School" was widely known in the Roman empire

or Oilkhan48 [71]

Historian Julien Aliquot pinpointed that the territory of Roman Berytus under Claudius reached the Bekaa valley

or the 2601:58C:C IP range [72]

The comments of Generalrelative (a black wikipedian, of course) are full of hate toward european colonists and the eritreans & somalians (who fought for their countries that were made FREE OF SLAVERY, thanks to the Italians - I want to pinpoint this accomplishment in case you don't know)

Unsurprisingly, the Ken93y account was created on 11 April 2022, just one week after Brunodam's most recent sock block –– though the account didn't make its first edit until over a year later (creating a user page saying Ken93y is a nice "name").

Thanks for giving this your attention. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • The accounts both used an IP that has a block log entry for block evasion related to this case. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC) reply
  •  Blocked and tagged per CU results and behaviour. Closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 22:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brunodam/Archive&oldid=1175091599"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE