Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Puhleec/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Puhleec

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

18 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Recent history [1] of this article. He claims the *2 account with a claim the system won't let him log into the main (I see nothing in the logs to indicate how that could be). Using accounts to revert and support each other there. Current discussion at [2] but my gut says this well is deeper than it looks. Asking a CU to peek around and see if there are more socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I am logged in currently as Otakrem2. I attempted to log in as Otakrem and was unable, I tried several times. That is why I created the Otakrem2 account to see if I have been banned or blocked? I can log off from Otakrem2 and see if I can log in to Otakrem? Please provide assistance.Otakrem2 (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user has made the utmost disruptive edits and hasn't stopped since the start of this month. Resourcer1 (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been disruptive. This is a false accusation by you and EthiopianHabesha. I have had discussion back and forth but I did nothing to the extent that you are accusing me of. You disagreed with my understanding of things and even personally attacked me in a Talkpage of the Abyssinian people titled a section "Otakrem disruptive edit", that is against Talkpage guidelines and personal attacks.Otakrem2 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are being disruptive, I do not wish to repeat the actions you have been doing for the thousandth time. Resourcer1 (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown/CheckUser I just logged off from Otakrem2 and tried to log on with Otakrem account and I got the following message: Central user log in No active login attempt is in progress for your session. Return to the previous page. What does this mean with the Otakrem account? I am able to log in with the Otakrem2 account, hence I am typing this from.Otakrem2 (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to log in to Otakrem and I got the same message above "Central user log in No Active login attempt is in progress for your session". Then I logged in with Otakrem2, this is quite strange.Otakrem2 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the message below mean the user/s listed above has/have been banned? KrakatoaKatie Dennis BrownResourcer1 (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it fair to point out that I have had exactly the same problem in the past. I even asked about it at the administrator's noticeboard (the wrong place apparently, but that is where I asked). For information it was here, Note, that the error message in my second post is the same as the one reported here (you can't make it up that accurately unless you have actually seen it). It is worth observing: that with no reason for believing that I had been blocked, I was wondering whether I needed to create a new account (though the problem went away before I got that far). --Elektrik Fanne 13:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is "banned". Katie blocked all the listed editors based on behavioral evidence. Blocking is not banning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Dennis said. This is an admitted sockmaster and I'm wondering if there's more underneath. If this turns out to be a technical problem, one account and only one account should be unblocked. I have no objection to anyone doing that if I'm unavailable and the technical evidence supports it. However, this disruption has spread across at least four administrative noticeboards in the last 48 hours (here, ANI, AIV, and RFPP) and enough is enough. I'm about to block everybody, lock the pages, and hide the keys in Narnia. Katietalk 15:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Please don't comment in this admin only section. Comment moved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Blocked pending CU. This situation has been at ANI twice and AIV at least once. Now he's socking? Nope. Katietalk 13:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The four accounts are  Confirmed. I blocked the master and tagged all the accounts. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


User Puhleec, Otakrem & other related accounts have been disrupting on Ethiopia related articles for a long time and after the block peace was restored on these articles for two and half months, but now there is a sign of going back as Duqsene (account created 2 Dec, 2016) is dealing with the same articles Otakrem used to [3] and with similar cause and same behaviour. Both continue to edit articles without consensus [4][5]. They have same view such as: "Amharas are oppressors, Oromos were persecuted by Amharas, Tigre people are not Habesha/Abyssinians, Ge'ez/Gazes/Axumites & Amharas are not related and that it is only Amharas who are Habesha/Abyssinian people". Diffs of Duksene: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and Diffs of Otakrem: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Both seems to have same cause i.e. to oppose the term Habesha/Abyssinian (or what they call Habeshanisation) being expanded on other people other than Amharas. It seems they are here to inform that Amharas persecuted other people but not to inform readers by providing balanced information with an impartial tone. EthiopianHabesha (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This is a bad faith accusation. Duqsene (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15 February 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Well, it is the first sock I listed 'CrumpPlint' to be investigated. All of these (that now have been banned) have been making similar irrational edits on some of the articles on this site. All happen to be the same article as well and have the same motive. I have also analysed the timing of these edits, and they all match up. The English used in posts in talk pages are also extremely similar and 'CrumpPlint' managed to appear once another disappeared. I have fished out these sock-puppets before and my request was successful.(Evidence in the Tigrayans article, although some pages back) Resourcer1 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Resourcer1, you couldn't edit and discuss without good faith and now accuse me of this? CrumpPlint (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Withdrawn by filer. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


usually they tag authors in the edit summaries for ex. [16] Alexander butavich is what caught my attention [17] Let me add writing similarities, Otakrem/AuthorityofWiki like to bold quotes in talk page discussion see here, [18] ..... [19] Otakrem here uses James Bruce [20] Unknownwiki does the same [21] his other now banned sock crumpplint also quotes james bruce. They are both very protective of eritrea and medri bahri. 91.129.102.157 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2018 (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, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


User:Puhleec has a history of Eritrean nationalism and using sock-puppets invented an ethnic group called Tigrinyas. Following a 30-day merger discussion in which editors and administrators agreed that Tigrinyas is nonsense and should be merged into Tigrayans a brand new user starts arguing on the talk page of the merged article. The style of arguing immediately reminded me of Uknowofwiki's style of arguing by making straw-man attacks. Looking at the new user's contributions of which it only consists of arguing on the talk page of the merged article it is clear to me that this is not a genuine user and instead a return of the sock-master.

Straw-man attack

[1]

[2] Turtlewong (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2018 (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]

Red X Unrelated. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Arguing against Tigrayan merger Troopyl [22], [23] Editornoir [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] Pushkinalex [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]

Arguing for change of ethnic identy of Woldemichael Solomon Editornoir [39], [40] Pushkinalex [41] Turtlewong (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2018 (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]

Editornoir and Pushkinalex and  Confirmed to each other and to Puhleec (talk · contribs · count). Blocked the unblocked account and tagged both. Troopyl is Red X Unrelated.  Clerk assistance requested: Please merge this into Puhleec.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Puhleec/Archive&oldid=1138677956"