Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loverofediting/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Loverofediting

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

23 June 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Doug Weller already blocked Eezdare as an obvious sock of Whodatttt, and Loverofediting quit editing a while ago. Nevertheless, given the last few revdelled edits of the 2a04:4a43 range, it's probably better to also block the Loverofediting account and to keep track of them here. CU requested to look for additional accounts. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I should perhaps have mentioned this in my original report, but both El C and Sdrqaz have confirmed to me that they have contacted Emergencies. Thanking them again for their prompt action. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  On hold - there has been some seriously unpleasant harassment out of that range recently. Can I check whether anyone has contacted Trust and Safety/Emergencies about the threats? Pinging Apaugasma (the OP), Sdrqaz (who blocked the /40), El C (who blocked 2a04:4a43:4d0f:cb37::/64), and Doug Weller (who is mentioned in the report). I'm confident that the same person has been editing out of that /40 range for years; they sometimes use accounts, but much of the time they edit while logged out. I completely agree with the /40 range block, but am not confident that one week is going to cut it, and given the nature of the threats I think that T&S need to be made aware if they haven't been already.
  • With regards to the older account proposed here as the master, I do think it likely that it is the same person. The CU records are stale, but they seem to have abandoned the account after its one-month block and moved on elsewhere. I'm going to block without tags - I very much doubt that it's their first account, they have certainly been editing logged out since long before that account was created, and with only 81 edits I don't think it's significant enough to be worth moving the case and fiddling with the tags over. (Whichever clerk archives this case is welcome to disagree with me and move/retag everyone if they see any value in that).
  • I've made some notes on cuwiki to help us keep track of this individual moving forwards. Girth Summit (blether) 20:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, thanks for that Apaugasma - good to know they're in the loop. As things stand, I'm inclined to close this case with no further action for now, but if they return and start that stuff again, please report immediately and I or another CU will look at a long-term range block. There will be some collateral, but not enough to make me hesitate to prevent abuse of that nature. Girth Summit (blether) 22:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, missed all this but the decision is sensible. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16 June 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Doug Weller talk 08:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed Doug Weller talk 08:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 May 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This is an LTA with a long and complex history of socking. Whodatttt is usually treated as the sockmaster. Satanic verses is one of their favourite articles. The real giveaway, though, is Theories about Alexander the Great in the Qu'ran. Here are diffs of confirmed socks editing this page. 1 2 3

In this example Gamma 737 effectively reinstates (using a very very similar edit summary style) the edits of this confirmed sock and this confirmed sock. Here we see that, after a handful of edits (and a dubious explanation of creating another account), Kaalaka finds their way to Satanic verses and begins making major changes like this that are essentially the same as Gamma 737, who has dozens of edits on the same page. If you compare edit summaries and topics chosen (this LTA tends to focus on Islam), it is clear that Gamma 737 and Kalakaaa are the same user, and that each is a sock of Whodatt and the roving IP. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • I just wanted to point this out. The accuser, @NEDOCHAN did not like my edits that fixed some part of the Satanic Verses article that misrepresented its source, and he reverted them with a reason of “lgv(sock)” [20]. So I posted the source text on the talk page of the article and invited him to have a discussion [21]; he refused the invitation and instead told me to "refer yourself to a check user" and kept reverting it with more accusation of sock. [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaalakaa (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith: here is some behavioral analysis after CU.
    I was already suspecting Warriorheydey of being a sock of Whodatttt, mainly for their editing interests ([23]; for Loverofediting being Whodatttt, see here) combined with a generally disruptive attitude. The fact that they now turn up in a CU check makes me fairly certain it's them. The shared interest in the citizenship of an Austrian-American actress [24] vs [25] more or less clinches it. Just as a note for future reference, this seems to suggest that they have temporarily lost their interest in the Dhu al-Qarnayn/Alexander subject they used to focus on previously.
    When looking at the editing interactions of the other accounts [26], it's striking that Kaalakaa has no overlap at all with either Whodatttt and their previously known socks (Loverofediting, Theriddler1234, Whowantsbeef), nor with new sock Warriorheydey. NEDOCHAN above claims that Kaalakaa's edits are similar to Gamma373 (who incidentally is not a proven sock), but they provide no diffs from Gamma373 to prove this claim (please provide diffs of both accounts to show the similarity). There seems to be essentially no behavioral evidence at this point for Kaalakaa.
As for Gamma373, the editing interaction tool [27] shows that the only overlap they have with Whodatttt socks are all on articles related to the Dhu al-Qarnayn/Alexander subject, and none at all on any article outside of that particular subject. This in itself would tend to show that Gamma373 is not likely a Whodatttt sock, but the actual content and style of their edits is also completely different: see [28] vs [29]; [30] vs [31]. As I noted before here, Whodatttt's entire focus in this subject area is on stressing that Dhu al-Qarnayn was Alexander the Great [32][33][34], while Gamma373's many constructive edits to this subject area seem to do nothing of the sort [35][36][37][38]. This edit [39] may seem to reinstate known socks' edits [40][41], but this content was actually reinstated earlier by an IP [42] (81.128.181.106, clearly used by Whodatttt) and then removed by NEDOCHAN together with Gamma373's new edits [43], so when Gamma373 reverted NEDOCHAN's removal [44] they haphazardly also reinstated the socks' edits. To sum up, Gamma373 clearly is not a Whodatttt sock. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

12 May 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This one is already CU-blocked (not confirmed to Whodatttt but to a non-confirmed sock). I'm mainly reporting to list them here for future reference, but a tag on their user page would also be helpful, and perhaps a further CU check to confirm them to more recent accounts? If not feel free to close this immediately.

Some extra behavioral evidence just for the sake of it: [45] vs [46][47]; [48] vs [49][50]; [51] vs [52] and [53].

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • FWIW, Theriddler1234, Whowantsbeef, Muslim3421, GreekMacedoniaForever, and Soyouy553 are all  Confirmed to each other and that group is  Highly likely to be Whodatttt -- RoySmith (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged, closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15 May 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[54] vs [55]; only other edited article was last edited by other sock Soyouy553 [56] ([57][58]).

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

07 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Evidence:

  • Ziggy Wiggy Figgy made this addition to Umayyad dynasty, which was subsequently reverted when they were blocked on August 18 as a suspected sock of Loverofediting. A couple of weeks later, Mingles1662 reinstated that same edit without explanation ([59]).
  • This edit by Iftar7376 seems to promote a particular POV and it was copied by Mingles1662 to two other articles a few days later ([60], [61]).
  • More generally, these new accounts also edit on very similar articles/topics in comparison with Loverofediting, Ziggy Wiggy Figgy, and Whodatttt; namely, on Islam (e.g. Quranism), the Umayyads, on some celebrities (especially Jean-Claude Van Damme, apparently).

R Prazeres (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

92.0.65.92 is almost certainly being used for another WP:BLOCKEVADE by this sockpuppeteer. At Luqman they quickly restored ([62]) content introduced by Jackie786 ([63]), a recently blocked sockpuppet of Loverofediting, after I deleted it ([64]; same content was also previously reverted here).

I'm also noting that 92.40.215.220 was clearly also the same user, at least in July 2023, as both IPs edit-warred at Al-Hakam II over the same content (compare [65] and [66]). However, this IP has not been active since July. R Prazeres (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this edit by 92.40.215.118 seems to be the same block evasion, restoring content added by the previous sock and recently deleted. So there may be various more IPs involved. R Prazeres (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another update: 92.40.215.118 has been blocked for two weeks ([67]). Shortly after my comment above, they apparently retaliated against me, so I reported them to WP:ANI (see diff of my report here). R Prazeres (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the same thing happened soon after this with 92.40.214.86, now similarly blocked. R Prazeres (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • 92.40.214.0/23 is already blocked for a week, 92.0.65.92 did not edit after this report. Closing. MarioGom (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This user made their first edit on one of the sockmaster's favourite articles - Alexander the Great in the Quran.

Podolski6272 first edit reinstates a banned IP edit, here. They then continued to make the edit, and it is the only edit this account has made. Blatant sockpuppetry. Also added the extremely obvious Efff dat sock, again editing the same page and the name clearly refers to other confirmed sock who datt. Pinging @Girth Summit: as they have seen this before. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

21 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

It's hardly worth bothering. Strange people out there. Sorry to ping again @Girth Summit: NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

27 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This new user's first edit was to reinstate an edit made by an IP here. The edit comes almost immediately after an edit by a confirmed sock of the same editor here. The idea that a new editor would join and immediately start reinstating edits by a confirmed sock makes no sense. Their reverted edits have been reinstated by Iskandar323, who has been assessed as Posslikely to be Loverofediting already. I think that the similarity of user names and their defence of a clear LTA merits taking another look at this user. Every page Swaglikeme has edited so far has also been edited by confirmed socks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC) NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Behaviorally, the notion that Iskandar323 is Loverofediting is frankly ridiculous. In terms of editing patterns, temperament, and general helpfulness they are night and day. @NEDOCHAN: could you please clarify where they have been assessed possilikely to each other from a technical perspective?

On another level, Iskandar323's assessment of SwagLikeMe464 "I don't see a clear issue with these edits or the user" [68][69] seems to be correct at least to the extent that the "block evasion" alleged by NEDOCHAN [70] is not in evidence (yet): SwagLikeMe464 shares with Loverofediting an interest in Quranism and in Non-denominational Muslim (interaction analyser), but I have found no diffs of SwagLikeMe464 reinstating any Loverofediting edit. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Swaglikeme's first edit is on a page that a sock was confirmed on a couple of days before and they edit the same pages. It seems clear to me but ho hum.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I got that wrong. Apologies.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Additional information needed - NEDOCHAN, please could you provide a link or diff to support your assertion that Iskandar323 has been assessed as Posslikely to Loverofediting? I looked in the archive here and tried Ctrl+F on 'Isk' but drew a blank: was that at another venue? Girth Summit (blether) 13:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • SwagLikeMe464 is pretty  Likely, and fairly ducky - I'm blocking them. I don't think the evidence presented about Iskandar323 is strong enough to warrant the use of CU - no action taken there. Girth Summit (blether) 09:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06 October 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

IP reinstated reverted content of a previous sock account, Mingles1662, at Umayyad dynasty (compare [71] and [72]).

And just to eliminate all subtlety, they responded to my revert of this edit by mass-reverting my unrelated edits on other articles, which is exactly what Loverofediting's previous IP socks (92.40.214.86 and 92.40.215.118) did on a previous occasion (see this earlier report).

The IP has been automatically reported to WP:AIV by a bot, so this may become moot, but I'm still reporting it here so the evidence is at least on the record, per a previous recommendation at WP:ANI (see here). R Prazeres (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the IP literally got blocked (for 72 hours) while I was posting this ([73]). R Prazeres (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

13 October 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Apart from the obvious shared interest in some extremely random articles such as Non-denominational Muslim and Jean-Claude Van Damme (as can be seen here), "Hero7373" supported "Wiggles567" on Demographics of Morocco and went on to edit war over their change. These new accounts were registered on the 10th and 19th of September. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk assistance requested: - I've blocked and tagged the accounts as Loverofediting. The report should be merged. Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always at your service. :) Merged, closing. Spicy (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New account reinstating same reverted addition made by two former sock accounts, Soyouy553 and Ziggy Wiggy Figgy. Compare: [74], [75], [76]. Minus very superficial wording variations, it's the exact same statement with the same two sources. R Prazeres (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: And in true Loverofediting fashion, they went on another retaliation spree against me (see some of my previous reports for examples of this) and were promptly indeffed. I'll let clerks decide whether to still tag it as a sockpuppet account. R Prazeres (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

20 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Other possible socks of prolific sockpuppeteer Loverofediting.

WushuFighter reinstated a reverted edit by an earlier blocked sock account, Hero7373 (compare [77] and [78]).

Loverofediting also typically edits in a rather distinct range of topics: Islam-related articles (like Quranism) and celebrities (especially Jean-Claude Van Damme). (Look for example at the histories of Ziggy Wiggy Figgy, Hero7373, Whodatttt, etc.) At least one other active account is editing the same topics, Rizzle685. E.g.: in addition to editing Jean-Claude Van Damme at the same time as WushuFighter, they've edited Yazid I, Mohammed bin Salman, Jet Li, Quranism, etc; all articles edited by previous blocked socks. That doesn't look like a coincidental overlap to me. BookOfEli131 also has some of the same overlap (Quranism, Islam and music, Torah in Islam, and Hadith, plus Val Valentino in common with Rizzle685).

If these are confirmed, there may be others still. R Prazeres (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

13 January 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Similar interest in Islam-related articles and MMA-related articles. Dido789 reinstated sock Jackie786's 30 August edit with a similar summary on Mu'awiya I. Jackie786: “He is seen as transforming the caliphate into a worldly and despotic kingship.” This does not fit with what the lead says about him being “honoured”. Dido789: "The word “honour” is far stretched. The main article does not mention this, but states even Sunnis have criticised him. There is no consensus in Sunnism that he should be “honoured”. See overall editor interaction with the other sockpuppets. Kermanshehi 💬 20:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19 January 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Account made shortly after Dido789 was blocked. EditTime753 re-instated Dido789's edits on Mu'awiya I; both accounts have the same interest of claiming that Mu'awiya I is not honored in Sunni Islam.Elhemdollileh (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

Diffs for EditTime753: [79] vs [80]. But compare the edit summary of that first diff with [81] and its content with [82], both Sheryofficial (cf. the last report there).

Further compare [83] and [84] with [85]. I think this also throws some light on who the OP here might be.

These two block-evading users have been warring over this article at least since November 2023 (Loverofediting had been editing the page previously at least since April 2023). @Girth Summit: haven't you been looking at this recently?

I also would like to ask any admin seeing this to consider protecting the page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

24 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same obsession with adding minute details from the article body to the lead section.

89.243.154.199: [86]

EditTime753: [87]

MartialFist: [88]

WhyNotHey: [89]

Edit summaries say it all. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Loverofediting/Archive&oldid=1199257814"