G.-M. Cupertino (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:
From the most recent contributions (such asthis one, where it removed all comments by or about G.-M. Cupertino), it would appear that 195.22.28.18 is a static IP address belonging to G-M.Cupertino, who is on aone year ban.This edit would tend to confirm it. I think a hard-block against the IP until the expiration of the ban on January 26, 2010 is in order, and a sweep for any socks should be run as well.
Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. Requested by —Kww(talk)14:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk endorsed to confirm, and check for collateral damage. Any block extensions need to be recorded on the Arb case.Mayalld (talk)16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, as well asHispaniola (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·spi block ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki). I've blocked the IP, the account and another IP until the expiration of the ArbCom ban.Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)20:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] | This case has been marked asclosed. It has beenarchived automatically. |
Please tag and archive ——nixeagleemail me03:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I became suspicious after the IP placed a message on Cupertino's talk page (he was banned for a year by arbitration) that was copied from Ciudadano's talk page, claiming that he would quit using Wikipedia. (similar to claims that Cupertino has used in the past).[1]. Today, another user posted on Cupertino's talk page, expressing his or her concern that Cupertino was bypassing his block by using the aforementioned IP, which was still regularly editing. After a bit of investigation, this seems likely, as the IP has made previous edits that served to remove evidence against Cupertino regarding his arbitration case, including removing a large discussion between myself and Cupertino from my talk page archive.[2][3][4][5] I included CiudadanoGlobal primarily because of the suspicious talk page posting, but the IP is the real issue here.Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib)16:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completed CiudadanoGlobal is unlikely to be anything to do with this, but the ip is
IP blocked and all is well with the world.Mayalld (talk)13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| This case has been marked asclosed. It has beenarchived automatically. |
Mayalld (talk)13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notedthis complaint. When I examined the edits, I agreed: GMC's latest crusade was the insertion of inappropriate German translations, and this looks like the same editor back. I've already blocked. Geographically, the IPs don't match well with previous GMC socks, so I invite review and scrutiny.—Kww(talk)14:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Looks OK. Could have been travels or w/e.Tim Song (talk)22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| This case has been marked asclosed. It has beenarchived automatically. |
Contribution overlap, including major contributions to such obscure articles asSir John Campbell, of Airds (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)andRichard Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views). Combine this with the user's hostile attitude on talk pages and we have aWP:DUCK. —Kww(talk)12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Already blocked and tagged, just doing the paperwork.—Kww(talk)12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Restoring reverted edits by known Cupertino socksPhoebus de Lusignan (diff) andLoveActresses (diff). Other edits show focus on minor titles of nobility, consistent with those of LoveActresses.Agricolae (talk)18:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Administrator note IP blocked two weeks. —HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)19:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Common interest (English aristocracy in the Middle Ages) is fairly arcane and reflects an almost perfect overlap; also the four most recent edits by the IP (toWilliam Sharon,Chris Strachwitz andFrancis G. Newlands) are all on articles previously edited by G.-M. Cupertino, and included testy edit summaries, which are evidently a hallmark of the (banned) master.JohnInDC (talk)20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
I'm sorry, but checkuser will not link IPs with named accounts.TNXMan20:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Duck. This editor started editing on the Thevery first edit was to add a sophisticated table without an error, that first time users with no experimentalist in a sandbox would be very unlikely to do. Then the user went on to edit many pages of interest touser:G.-M. Cupertino adding the sort of trivia that interests G.-M.C --PBS (talk)18:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
The genealogical chart in the cited edit is not all that sophisticated. The numbering is a standard format used by genealogists, and the headers etc. seem pretty obvious. The first time I saw one, I could have immediately edited or replicated it without error, without using a sandbox. That doesn't mean the current User isn't GMC (or at least LoveActresses and Konakonian), but that will have to come from the CheckUser and not their ability to throw together such a table.Agricolae (talk)08:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a checkuser request because the user requested unblock several hours ago, and it'd unlikely that anyone will unblock him until a checkuser is run.—Kww(talk)05:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk endorsed -T. Canens (talk)05:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated. Gtommy17's IPs geolocate to a completely different continent than those that have been blocked asG.-M. Cupertino (talk ·contribs)'s in the past. That said, it was never technically confirmed that the IPs blocked as G.-M. Cupertino's were in fact his.Tiptoetytalk19:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed as a sock ofG.-M. Cupertino (talk ·contribs),LoveActresses (talk ·contribs) is
Stale. That saidGtommy17 (talk ·contribs) does not share any similarities (technically speaking) to Konakonian. Hope that helps,Tiptoetytalk19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]PromotingChristian Settipani; similar editing style on this article, similar responses to other editors, similar editing on a number of obscure historical articles which are part of Settipani's descent-from-antiquity work... seethe article overlap. Also appears to edit asGradyELoy (talk ·contribs). Could be meatpuppetry instead of sockpuppetry.bobrayner (talk)13:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
GradyEdwardLoy and GradyELoy are the same, and this User should pick one and stick with it rather than switching back and forth, but in terms of overlap with GMC, I don't see it. The only pages in common are interrelated, and anyone interested inDescents from Antiquity is likely to edit this set of pages. What is missing is obsession with titles of nobility (or editing any common articles on nobility outside of this very limited selection of Gallo-Romans) and obscure medieval families, while GradyEL has made substantial additions to two pages on obscure Arizona towns that fall well outside GMCs area of interest. There is a similar editing style, but it is a common editing style, that of the typical beginner with little experience in collaborating and reaching consensus (while an editor for over 3 years, less than 200 edits to article space have been made), rather than something unique to GMC (who simply never grew out of this phase). This is a duck that doesn't quack.Agricolae (talk)18:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to see some very specific evidence. Comparing the talk page edits, I get the sense of two very different people.—Kww(talk)00:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do here. I'll have a separate discussion about the GradyEdwardLoy/GradyELoy accounts. I don't see that there's an intent to deceive, but I also don't see any legitimate reason for the pair of accounts.—Kww(talk)23:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[6] and[7] added content introducedhere byHRO'Neill (talk ·contribs), who is blocked as a sock of G.-M. Cupertino.Paradoctor (talk)19:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
I was advised byUser:Slashme that text I had previously overwritten with a redirect has been reinstated.
Rinstatment of text by83.240.186.98 added by193.136.1.14 a suspected sock ofUser:G.-M. Cupertino to articleJoan Brooke, 5th Baroness Cobhamhistorydiff betweenRevision as of 15:39, 3 December 2010 by 193.136.1.14 andRevision as of 17:09, 7 January 2019 by 83.240.186.98.
I ran editor interaction beteen the to ip addresses it is clear to me that 83.240.186.98 is a suspected sock ofUser:G.-M. Cupertinoresult
Other suspected sock accounts ofUser:G.-M. Cupertino with matching results tp 83.240.186.98:
I would like a second opinion of this.PBS (talk)19:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
This IP was mentioned just days ago in a now-closed investigation[8] of another IP as being among those that had been used relatively recently by what seemed to be the same actual longtime-blocked sockmaster to carry out a content dispute, and an analysis during that investigation concluded that it and the others "match the reported IP in both geolocation and recent edits, and should be watched, but none of them has edited over the past few days." They now using this one again to make edits, restoring all or part of content previously inserted by the just-blocked IP-sock 83.240.186.98.[9][10][11][12]Agricolae (talk)11:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
this IP address has been identified as a probable sockpuppet and blocked. --PBS (talk)17:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another IP addresses that has probably been used as a sockpuppet:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.I filed a report at WP:AIV since the socking was utterly obvious, so they're now blocked, and this report can be closed. - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note IPs blocked and tagged by Widr and PBS.DrKay (talk)20:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned in previous (Jan 11[13]) investigation as likely sock, but no action taken as it was considered stale. IP has now made 99 edits in past 24 hrs, some virtually identical to reverted edits of other blocked IP socks (e.g.[14]).Agricolae (talk)17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Cleaning up after this ip, I noticed the overlap with83.240.186.98 (talk ·contribs), in articles, content, and response to warnings.
Sorry for not catching it earlier.Ronz (talk)17:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
User is making a series of edits that are restoring material that established IPs and socks of G.-M. Cupertino repeatedly tried to insert into articles.[15][16][17]
This is sort of cookie-cutter material, so it is possible that this is just somebody else who thinks the same information should be in these articles (hence the request for a checkuser), but it seems likely to be another sock.Agricolae (talk)20:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Awaiting administrative action - Nothing to match against. Block IPs at discretion.QEDK (後 ☕桜)21:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply] Administrator note I believe this is a sock ofJimmy Jam III (talk ·contribs) /Mouauia rafii (talk ·contribs). Blocked and tagged user account.DrKay (talk)22:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]Seeanother sock andthis. Same articles same editsGeraldo Perez (talk)20:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Former IP is contininuing the (bad) edits of the latter IP (which has been blocked).~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~00:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Same network and geolocation, repeating the same edits as previous sock.Richard Branson:[22],[23];Falconer (surname):[24],[25],[26].IamNotU (talk)21:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Same edits as just-blocked Cupertino IP socks 89.214.235.171[27] and 83.240.186.98[28].Agricolae (talk)19:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
same edits as blocked Cupertino sock 46.50.74.211[29],[30]Agricolae (talk)00:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
More block evasion by G.-M. Cupertino. See edit history ofClan Buchanan.Interstellarity (talk)23:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Check declined by a checkuser - Per the privacy policy, checkusers cannot publicly disclose the connection between an IP and a user.Reaper Eternal (talk)23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: I've blocked theobvious sockpuppet IP and protected the page. Closing.Reaper Eternal (talk)23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]restoration of material previously added by just-blocked Cupertino sock IP 95.69.19.9 (e.g.[31] ,[32])Agricolae (talk)00:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
restoring content of blocked Cupertino IP socks[33],[34], and many many moreAgricolae (talk)23:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Same edit by previously-blocked IP socks:[35] and[36], is repeated by ip2:[37]; it's their only edit but from the same network and location. A couple of hours later, ip1 makes a related edit, again from the same network and location:[38]. They're obviously the same person, prolific edits of "see also" sections in surname articles, for example reinstating edits of previous socks inAhrendt:[39].IamNotU (talk)23:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a third IP, also same network and location. Continuing edit war of previous socks here:[40] with same edit:[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46]. Similar edits to previously-blocked socks inKathryn Morris,Scotty Valens, etc. --IamNotU (talk)23:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
making similar edits to a lot of surname pages as previous reverted edits by other Cupertino socks. Some examples:[47],[48], and many, many more.Agricolae (talk)18:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Administrator note IP /64 range blocked for 3 months.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)18:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]Started editing the same pages within minutes of the previous sock being blocked[49],[50],[51]Agricolae (talk)19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
sock used yesterday, same pattern[52],[53] and more.Agricolae (talk)20:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Alvalade XXI's account was globally locked on 4th March forlong-term abuse. They're most recent work focused on COVID19 deaths from the recent deaths page, adding this information to recently deceased subjects (example). The sock user account started to edit two days later, and has the same edit pattern (example).LugnutsFire Walk with Me08:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Confirmed. Confirmed: Global lock(s) requested.Blablubbs|talk21:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened.Blablubbs|talk09:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Likely:~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)16:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The account clearly has the sameediting patterns asthis account, which is a confirmed sockpuppet ofUser:Alvalade_XXI (see for example:diff anddiff). Both accounts mainly edit articles about recently deceased people.JeanClaudeN1 (talk)23:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Reopened and
CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk – clearly them, but the last CU run a month ago found some sleepers, I think it's worth another look.Blablubbs|talk12:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] Global lock(s) requested. Given how far back this goes, I'm leaving them with
No tags. Closing.Blablubbs|talk22:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]Pro-forma, see below. --Blablubbs|talk13:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Dahlia&diff=prev&oldid=1040998743
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael,_Prince_of_Montenegro&diff=prev&oldid=1007751972
Looks like a duck to me
FMSky (talk)11:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this user is also another sock:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Menino_Tonecas
requesting checkuser for any others— Precedingunsigned comment added byFMSky (talk •contribs)11:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Blocked but awaiting tags, and noting that they are CU-confirmed on ptwiki. Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check and to see if we can get an IP block in place. --Blablubbs (talk)15:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] IP blocked.Reaper Eternal (talk)15:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Malig77 has the same obsession with COVID-19 deaths. They intersect on various articles with previous socks, e.g.,Javier Neves with Alvalade XXI; andMoisés Mamani with Obituarian and Alvalade XXI. However, there are dissimilarities: unlike most of the blocked socks, (1) Malig77 does not mark all edits as minor, (2) Malig77 uses edit summaries sometimes, and (3) Malig77 creates articles. The article creation is at an amazingly rapid clip, although the articles are very patterned and short, and all concern people who died of COVID-19. Because of these differences, I am requesting a CU.Bbb23 (talk)18:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
In progress - --RoySmith(talk)17:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Unrelated --RoySmith(talk)17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Clerk note: original case name)All three of these accounts seem to be obsessed with linking to historical countries for recently deceased individuals, violatingWP:EGG. For example, on the article forAnna Maria Tatò, the subject was born in Italy, but each one of these editors keeps re-adding [[Kingdom of Italy|Italy]] in the infobox. Diffs:
Other recent examples include:
There's massive overlap between Norman and MSLCPR perthis. I added the IP address to the tool, but it doesn't seem to work, but I suspect the overlap would be very similar. I find it hard to believe that these three editors are working independently of each other to add such esoteric detail.LugnutsFire Walk with Me16:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed for comparison of MSLCPR to historical/cuwiki data for these two cases & a sleeper check given the history of extensive socking. I'm not endorsing a check on Normantas Bataitis, though of course CUs are free to do so if they consider the evidence convincing enough. Thanks,Spicy (talk)16:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed to Alvalade XXI from historical notes. No comment on the IP. I see nothing technical linking them to Normantas Bataitis.Girth Summit (blether)12:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Clerk note: original case name) Clerk note: original case name)EXAMPLES
Breaking up a paragraph after the initial sentence about a person.
MSLCPR:
GMMMAC (sometimes adding a heading):
Adding links to certain eras in a country's history.
MSLCPR:
GMMMAC:
Adding unnecessary states, provinces, etc. to place names.
MSLCPR:
GMMMAC:
Considering occupied countries as part of Nazi Germany.
MSLCPR:
GMMMAC:
Keesal (talk)22:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
In progress -Girth Summit (blether)19:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed toMSLCPR, who is themselves confirmed to Alvalade XXI. Based on the history of blocks and the notes on CUwiki, I'm pretty confident that these are allG.-M._Cupertino. I'm going to merge the cases, add some notes on cuwiki, and request locks.Girth Summit (blether)20:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Global lock(s) requested for GMMMAC. --Blablubbs (talk)21:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Clerk note: original case name)In recent days, CdeVNdeP and SCPSLBFCPCFB have attempted to add precisely the same content, citing the same sources, toSex differences in humans[54],Neuroscience of sex differences[55] andSex differences in psychology[56]. After being reverted, both IP and SCPSLBFCPCFB proceeded to edit war in an attempt to force inclusion at two of these articles: see[57][58][59] versus[60].
A quick glance at the contribution history of these three accounts shows a great deal of thematic overlap: all three share a keen interest in the royal / noble houses of Europe. See in particular the special focus on the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck common to both SCPSLBFCPCFB (a small sample:[61][62][63]) and the IP (a small sample:[64][65][66]). Compare with, e.g., CdeVNdeP's focus on the house of Saxe-Coburg (a small sample:[67][68][69]), and their recent edits with regard to theEuropean Commission of the Nobility: (e.g.[70][71][72]). Both SCPSLBFCPCFB and the IP have also editedJohn Maynard Keynes to include the same excessive geographical specificity in the infobox:[73] versus[74].
There is also the stylistic overlap between SCPSLBFCPCFB and the IP in their hyperbolic edit summaries. Cf:How did you even find me here, you biased vandal? You are nothing but a negationist, an earthplainist about the sex differences in humans!
(SCPSLBFCPCFB[75]) versusYou have time to play in the article's talk page, I don't. The only thing you do is masking the scientific evidence of sex differences and attacking its most vocal defender and actual Psychologist behind Wikipedia's Leftist leanancy!
(IP[76]).
The above should make clear that SCPSLBFCPCFB and the IP are very, very likely to be the same person. I'm asking for checkuser to confirm that SCPSLBFCPCFB is in fact the same person as CdeVNdeP. Also, given that SCPSLBFCPCFB was created last November, made 8 edits at that time and then disappeared until yesterday, whereupon it proceeded to makedozens of technical edits, my guess is that checkuser may uncover other sleepers as well –– and that indeed there may be a known sockmaster behind all three accounts.Generalrelative (talk)21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
In progress -Mz7 (talk)04:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed plusManuel de Sousa Coutinho (talk+ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·spi block ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki). Blocked and tagged: all accounts indefinitely because of the apparent attempt to evade scrutiny by inserting the same content to multiple articles with multiple accounts; the edit summaries highlighted by Generalrelative above also do not give me confidence that they arehere to build an encyclopedia.
No comment with respect to IP address(es). The next clerk or administrator that sees this should examine the IP address's behavior to determine whether it should be blocked as well.Mz7 (talk)04:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Administrator note given the IP three months off - behavioural similarities are enough for me, as well as the similar NOTHERE-ish behaviour as the others. Closing.firefly(t ·c )08:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Clerk note: original case name)It looks like I've missed another sock here. Just as I was writing up my last report about SCPSLBFCPCFB and their socks CdeVNdeP and IP 93.108.235.122, who were edit warring to add a specific paragraph about purported sex differences to a number of articles ([77][78][79][80][81][82][83]), IP 79.169.238.8 added precisely the same paragraph to another article,Sex as a biological variable:[84].
Both the established sock 93.108.235.122 and the newly discovered IP 79.169.238.8 geolocate to Lisbon, Portugal.
More behavioral similarities are evident as well, including 79.169.238.8's interest in the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck (a small sample:[85][86][87], and including edit warring to reinstate 93.108.235.122's edits after they were blocked for sockpuppetry:[88]); compare with blocked socks[89][90][91][92][93][94]. Cf also 79.169.238.8's focus on the house of Saxe-Coburg ([95][96][97]) with that of sock the CdeVNdeP ([98][99][100]). Given that IP 93.108.235.122 continues to insist that they've done nothing wrong, and that they havemany accounts
[101], and that IP 79.169.238.8 continues to edit even after some of these other accounts were blocked, it looks to me like we have a clear DUCK forblock evasion.Generalrelative (talk)02:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Clerk note: original case name)More evident block evasion. New IP edit warring over the same content[105][106] (cf.[107][108]) geolocates to the same region of Portugal, the Lisbon area. Similar interest in royalty as other SCPSLBFCPCFB socks. Looks like another alt for the same user. As should be clear fromthis, the sockmaster does not appear inclined to stop.Generalrelative (talk)19:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use my many accounts to evade blockings, I was not blocked in any of them. I used them indiscriminately, sometimes one, sometimes the other. To have some less trouble, not because I was trying to pass as many people. There is nothing in my edits that suggest I tried to do such a thing, and even now I assume they are all mine. And yet, you have blocked my indefinitely as if I had done anything wrong![109] (blocked IP 93.108.235.122)
These are not disruptive edits, nor is there any sign of sockpuppetry on them. Also, the doubts about the findings work both ways, including over the ones not finding, justifying a separate section that includes both lines.[110] and
These are minor text not disruptive refinements without any noticeable connection to the accused of sockpuppetry.[111] (IP 62.28.19.234)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
"New" account that started editing earlier today, with the same pattern as the previous socks of updating the place of birth/death for people who, er, died in 2022. ObviousWP:DUCK.LugnutsFire Walk with Me 19:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)LugnutsFire Walk with Me19:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. SeeDefending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed - same editing pattern as previous socks, e.g.[112][113] and I note that this account is already attached to ptwiki. Endorsing to confirm and check for others. Thanks,Spicy (talk)18:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed to Clerk note: original case name)SCPSLBFCPCFB and their socks have a unique editing pattern which this IP fits perfectly. There are two main areas of focus: 1) purported sex differences in intelligence and behavior (which is where most of their disruption typically occurs) and 2) notable people –– especially members of the European nobility, e.g.[114],[115],[116][117] (IP, just a small sample) versus[118],[119],[120],[121] (SCPSLBFCPCFB, again just a small sample) –– where they have a distinctive habit of adding unnecessary strings of place wikilinks to infoboxes like so:[122],[123],[124],[125] (IP) versus e.g.[126],[127],[128] (SCPSLBFCPCFB)[129] (one of their previous socks). The IP has recently begun a streak of activity in the topic area of sex differences in intelligence and behavior (a small sample:[130],[131],[132] versus e.g.[133]), which is how I noticed them. For anyone who has dealt with SCPSLBFCPCFB in the past, this is clearly a DUCK and a case of block evasion.Generalrelative (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Generalrelative (talk)16:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting administrative action - the behavioural evidence is convincing (the IP is also in the same range as apreviously blocked sock). Please block the IP for one month (anon-only, account creation blocked). Thanks,Spicy (talk)13:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] IP blocked for a month. Closing.DatGuyTalkContribs14:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]Those who are familiar with this LTA will immediately recognize the editing pattern, esp. the hyper-focus on the infoboxes of world leaders, and especially the bios of European nobility (Codexbox1:[134][135][136] versus known socks of G.-M. Cupertino, e.g.:[137][138][139]).
The editor interaction tool showsplenty of overlap with the original G.-M. Cupertino account (leaving aside all of the many known socks); over just 58 edits on 37 articles, Codexbox1 has managed to editsix of the same articles as the sockmaster:Manuel Azaña,Francisco Franco,Stanley Baldwin,Andrew Jackson,Benjamin Harrison, andLéon Blum.Generalrelative (talk)03:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated. Closing.TonyBallioni (talk)22:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]Proforma for the scripts, already blocked.Girth Summit (blether)16:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, alsoSPTOMF. Locks requested, closing.Girth Summit (blether)16:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply] Clerk note: original case name)OnMariella Ahrens, Ireverted MdeFdelaS' edit, which had stood for one day. I came across MdeFdelaS because they were repeatedly[140][141][142] removing content from WP:AIV.
Just 15 minutes after reverting all of MdeFdelaS' edits, including the one on Mariella Ahrens, ACdeAC restores MdeFdelaS' change on that article.
Sockpuppetry has been an issue on Mariella Ahrens since late December 2024, so I'll add a few IPs here as "see also" items:
Clerk endorsed - I did some digging and found that these accounts are very obviously G.-M. Cupertino, so I've moved it here. Blocked and tagged, CU endorsed to sweep for others because there are usually more to be found.The WordsmithTalk to me02:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]PhilKnight (talk)05:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked and tagged. Closing.PhilKnight (talk)05:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]Restoring edits made by blocked sockUser:ACdeAC. Also name similarities.Geraldo Perez (talk)04:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP range is also making same edits, some IPs have been blocked.Geraldo Perez (talk)23:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, plus: Requested actions completed, closingThe WordsmithTalk to me18:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]MGCGA was blocked on en:wikipediaon 28 March 2025 as a sock of G.-M. Cupertino. The sockpuppeteer seems to have used IPs to avoid scrutiny in the articles "Aura Garrido", ""Macarena García" and "Cayetana Guillén Cuervo", in which they seem to add image bloat to no avail.
Asqueladd (talk)19:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: Merged in from original case name,Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SNdeC
Confirmed and blocked. Noting that there is significant technical overlap withWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino, but it may be easier to track them separately for now.--Ponyobons mots20:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Clerk note: original case name)The master IP address, 109.51.252.107,has been banned since April 2025. In response, they've created three IP addresses above, to evade the block.Background: The IP joined Wikipedia on 25 December 2024. Their only focus were variousroman emperors. The trouble began shortly after they joined, as they warned twice for uncostructive edits, and later, for edit warring. The real trouble struck on 25 April 2025, five months after joining, when they were blocked for block evasion. So, they've created more IPs listed on "Suspected sockpuppets". Currently, three of them aren't blocked.
Diffs of evidence by sockpuppet:2A01:14:8063:CAC0:8446:F3E5:E365:5B07 (created on 25 May 2025):
2A01:14:8063:CAC0:8CFF:274E:448D:C012(created on 31 May 2025):
109.51.129.227 (created on 31 May 2025):
From May 25 to June 14, the 3 IPs have made 77 edits. Confirmed to be operated by the same person via Whois Gateway.CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk)18:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This IP address added nearly identical content to Clyde Kenneth Harris as another blocked sockpuppet, 93.108.241.188.Alith Anar22:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: originally filed under this user)Aromatize was created on March 27, 2025,ALCBFAN2 was created on March 28, 2025, andSNdeC was created on April 6, 2025.ALCBFAN2 was already confirmed to be a sockpuppet ofSNdeC.
Both Aromatize and ALCBFAN2 made or attempted to make edits toEsther andClara McGregor on June 14, 2025.
All three users have consistently ignored user warnings and cited guidelines, often replying to users with snide remarks in an effort to prove their own point. As@Remsense: stated in their case, "When they engage on talk, they speak either in curt, plain fragments or otherwise rather standoffishly."
In doing so, they often use quotation marks in their replies to indicate sarcasm:
A minor idiosyncrasy is that they have all linked to the corresponding nation/ethnic group articles when describing a person's origin, e.g. "She is ofPortuguese descent."
Another minor idiosyncrasy is that Aromatize and ALCBFAN2 use spaces before and after a forward slash.
Aromatize's fourth edit was to reassess an article from stub class to start class, which seemsprecocious for a newbie.[264]Mellamelina (talk)06:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: originally filed under this user)[267][268][269]Willthacheerleader18 (talk)23:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To help out @Willthacheerleader18, here is some quick evidence:
Mellamelina (talk)00:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information needed -Willthacheerleader18, you haven't provided any evidence. Please seeWP:GOODSPI. --asilvering (talk)23:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]This case is being reviewed byasilvering as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on theirtalk page or on this page if more appropriate.
CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - ThanksMellamelina. That's well obvious enough for a duck block, but I'm referring for CU in case this gives us more towards establishing the link toWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino asPonyo noticed recently.asilvering (talk)00:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Confirmed sock ofSNdeC.PhilKnight (talk)01:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Blocked and tagged. Closing.PhilKnight (talk)01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Clerk note: originally filed under this user)User has made similar edits on the same articles as the sockmaster and confirmed sockpuppets.
—Mellamelina (talk)01:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible - same location and ISP.PhilKnight (talk)01:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Blocked and tagged. Closing.asilvering (talk)15:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]Restoring edits made by confirmed socks on the following articles:
—Mellamelina (talk)12:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend expanding any blocks to the broader195.23.62.16/28 range. It's exclusively used by the disruptive editor. ~Pbritti (talk)13:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User made similar edits as confirmed socks onMariella Ahrens:[336][337][338]Mellamelina (talk)16:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add to that83.223.232.0/22, where I'm currently engaged (individual IP cross-reported at AIV). That range has minimal collateral, with one apparently unrelated IP editor who likes Portuguese Anglicanism. ~Pbritti (talk)16:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring edits made by confirmed sockpuppets on the following articles:
—Mellamelina (talk)18:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw 31.22.201.148 in my watchlist reinstating changes from sockLNEC and reported them directly to the admin who blocked LNEC(without knowledge of this report)[348] who has now blocked the IP forBE for 72 hours[349].fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)21:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Targeting exact same pages as previous socks en masse. Obvious ducking and aggressive edit warring behavior.Jalen Barks(Woof)22:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for filing and reverting,JalenBarks. I filed this one over at AIV as requested in the last round of investigations, but summer Mondays have a way of slowing things down. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)22:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Global lock(s) requested, closing.asilvering (talk)07:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]