Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Soapamalkanmaime

Soapamalkanmaime (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
06 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Llully created his account on September 5, Clog on September 6. The first edit by Llully was to create his user page with {{User page}}. He later did the same thing with his talk page. Clog did the same two edits here and here. Both accounts are here to promote Switzerland. Llully's initial focus was on Swiss hospitals, particularly psychiatric hospitals. He created this article. He created a category for it. The article he created, Hospital of Cery, was tagged for speedy deletion. I reviewed the tag and redirected the article rather than deleting it. Clog's very first edit was to undo the redirect. Both accounts add portal bars to articles: see here and here. Bbb23 (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2013 (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]
  •  Checkuser note: - There appear to be many more involved accounts than just these two.
  • The following accounts are  Confirmed as each other:
  • The following accounts are all  Confirmed as each other, and very  Likely related to the group above:
  •  IP blocked for that sockpuppet farm.
  • As if that is not enough, the following accounts are all  Confirmed as each other and quite  Likely related to the other sockpuppet farms:
  • We also have the following accounts,  Confirmed as each other and very  Likely related to the previous socks.
  • I've blocked Lowe D. C. Clog based on WP:DUCK and tagged him as suspected as opposed to confirmed. A new account was created since you ran the CU: Res T. Image (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's clearly here to promote Switzerland and, in particular, hospital-related articles. He reverted the redirect at Hospital of Cery. His user name has initials in it like Clog. At the same time, he has not done anything with his user or talk pages that is similar to the other sock accounts. I'm not taking any action for the moment, at least until you have an opportunity to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did not block User:Res T. Image. Whoever archives this may take a different view. Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Blocked that account, obvious SPA. Rschen7754 05:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The named account was created after the last CU. His initial interests were in Swiss articles, including the University Hospital of Lausanne edited a month earlier by confirmed sock User:Lowe D. C. Clog. Just like previous accounts, he added portal bars to many articles, including here, here, and here. He was assisted by at least two of the three IPs in edit warring at Murder of Meredith Kercher. See also this report at WP:AN3. Based on duck, I have indeffed the named account and blocked the three IPs for a month (I am listing the IPs only for the sake of completeness, not because I expect the CU to go there). I requested the CU to confirm the relationship and because there were so many sleepers last time. Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got to thinking after I went off-wiki yesterday and realized that CU information is stored for only three months, and it's been almost four months since the last puppet was blocked. Nonetheless, I'm going to leave in the CU request as last time accounts were tied to each other in groups, and there may be sleepers connected to the puppet reported here. If I'd been quicker on the ball catching the user when they first started editing ...--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2014 (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]
are  Confirmed to each other. Please check Statykyl for behavior. NativeForeigner Talk 09:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to see how the three confirmed accounts are the same individual because they all share an interest in criminal trial articles. The fact that Mendisar has intersections with previous confirmed socks should be enough in and of itself to indef all three. Still, I have a few other behavioral things to add. This diff shows Statykyl adding a portal, which is typical of this sock. Also, compare this edit by confirmed sock Soapamalkanmaime with the same diff by Statykyl. Both show changing a section header from "Notes" to "Notes and references", even though there is only one kind of footnoting involved. Finally, to the extent that all of the accounts previously blocked are actually the same individual instead of the possibility of more than one master (the accounts, like this one, are connected in groups to each other rather than being connected definitively as a single group), the sock's interests are quite wide, not only with respect to subject matter but with respect to the nationality of the articles. My view is that there is enough to block the two accounts that have yet not been blocked. However, I'll wait to see if Rschen7754 wants to voice an opinion, or take whatever action he deems appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone ahead and blocked the remaining two accounts per Bbb23's analysis. Closing case now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This was not triggered at first by this master. However, when I looked more deeply into it, I believe that some or all of the puppets are related to Soapamalkanmaime. Starting in the middle, I blocked Féd Poppy on February 9 at 18:35 for one week for edit warring. At the same time, other editors thought that he had edited with previous accounts, although not at the same time. Those are, in order of age, Trumpnewtq, Loceaul & wheya, and Paul Itiqu Fedtr. If you look at User talk:Féd Poppy, you'll see that on February 9 another editor asked him about those three accounts, and he did not respond. After I blocked him, I asked him the same question (just below the block notice). He hasn't responded.

I was then told on my talk page that all of the other accounts (starting with FLCJPA) and the two IPs started editing similar pages to Fed Poppy, beginning on February 10. The timing and the intersection of the accounts was enough for me to conclude that they were related to Fed Poppy. However, looking deeper, it appeared that there were also similarities between the accounts and Soapamalkanmaime, which made me think this went deeper. For example, FLCJPA, of the "new" accounts, did not start editing on February 10. He started editing on February 1, and the articles he edited were the same as the accounts Soapamalkanmaime and his puppets edit: University of Lausanne, Lausanne campus, etc. And there is an interesting gap in his history between February 1 when he edited those articles and February 10 when he started editing the articles associated with Fed Poppy. Thus FLJPA provides a link between the two sets of accounts and the two sets of articles (and everything is Swiss-related, of course).

There are other similarities with Soapamalkanmaime. For example, this edit by Paul changes a section header from "Note and citations" to "Notes and references", a common variant of edits done by Soap's puppets. A similar edit was made by Trumpnewtq here. Also, this edit by Paul adds a portal bar to an article. Soap and his puppets often added portal bars of various kinds to many articles.

Then there are the IPs, both from Switzerland. In particular, 128.178.197.61 (talk · contribs) comes from a similar series of previous IPs used by Soap. It is static and it comes from an organization called Ecublens Camp Net from the Swiss Education and Research Network, the same as 128.178.197.62 (talk · contribs) and 128.178.197.63 (talk · contribs), both previously blocked as Soap socks. 144.85.164.231 (talk · contribs), previously blocked as a Soap sock, uses VTX Services SA as the ISP and is static. The recent IP, 83.228.189.70 (talk · contribs), uses the same ISP, although they are marked as dynamic.

I've blocked all of the named accounts indefinitely except the first three as they are stale. I've blocked the two IPs for a month. I've delayed tagging the named accounts until the outcome of this investigation. I've also delayed changing the duration of Fed Poppy's block. Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

The same user now appears to be editing from 130.223.2.2 (talk · contribs) (and briefly did last September/November). Note the addition of portal bars (e.g. here). Number 57 16:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed Comprehensive collection of evidence by Bbb23 strongly suggests there is sock puppetry going on, endorsing for CheckUser attention to check the links between the accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: In the first list, I've tagged everyone and blocked everyone who wasn't already blocked. I've also indeffed and tagged Gènédic and Palana Canal based on portal addition, notes and references addition, and this history for Palana Canal, which is literally an explosion of socks, not to mention the Swiss articles generally. Finally, as to Salhj Scaliq, I've changed the tag. Europefan is a much newer editor, and I wonder based on some of the comments in their archives, if they aren't in fact a sock of Soap.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: The two sock farms are editing from two different countries, so I think that's unlikely. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like everything has been taken care of, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16 February 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same reverts: Science and technology in Switzerland. Has some new interests, Shania Twain and Glenn Gould. But the pattern of a brand new account adding portal templates to many articles is the same. It's unlikely someone who has never edited Wikipedia before would suddenly be adding technical templates like {{Use dmy dates}} or {{Use British English}}. This new account was probably created to re-post Otto Feick, only to discover the page is create protected. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Hello. I understand you good intentions but there is a mistake here. I assure you that I am not Europefan. Lisunina Torgloc (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
17 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


newish account, jokey name, starts with general edits before moving full time into naming debates. Edits have already been brought up at AN/I. Latest burst of activity after other sock puppets blocked.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC) JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Comment I have this page watch-listed since it has been so active. But I honestly don't think this is Kauffner, neither area of interest nor edit style. Kauffner's interests are mainly Asia and conservatism, I think this is a sock. but of someone else involved in the birds/science area. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also think it is definetly a sock of somebody. Unlike IIO I would not rule out Kauffner though, while it was his handling of Asian subjects that got him banned, article naming in general has been his subject of choice, together with with the noted flurry of activity after the last round of socks got caught makes a compelling argument to at least check. The last round of socks also shows that Kauffner is getting smarter at flying under the radar for a while. Agathoclea (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A bit late but adding to the archive that User:H._H._Wander_Strata may also need a check. Shyamal (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Looks pretty likely based on the evidence presented. CU for confirmation, sleepers and possibility of underlying IP block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't look like Kauffner to me but did smell highly of a sock. It looks  Confirmed to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soapamalkanmaime/Archive and there is a ton of logged out editing going on. I'm going to try to apply rangeblocks but I'm no sure so have consulted the checkuser team for assistance. NativeForeigner Talk 05:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Result from CU investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan by DoRD:

These are  Technically indistinguishable from the above and other Soapamalkanmaime socks, but  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 11 July 2014 (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]
  • After speaking with DoRD, on the confirmation of these accounts, i'm blocking them. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same article edits as Europefan's Switzerland-related socks. Same sophisticated use of portal and language templates; obviously an advanced Wikipedia editor. Same pattern of creating a new login account in order to create new pages. Re-created Lemanic region and Lemanic region redirects previously deleted as work of Europefan sock. Might want to checkuser to find more sleepers, since he generally creates socks in batches. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2014 (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]
  • This following appears to be Soapamalkanmaime:
  • These accounts appear to be technically related to Soapamalkanmaime:
  • But,  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Behaviorally, there appears to be some relation to the previous batch of socks so would like a second pair of eyes. Elockid (Talk) 16:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elockid, could you please comment on Boby Calgeu? You haven't made a technical finding on him one way or the other. Thanks. (I've removed LightandDark2000's comment as singularly unhelpful and inappropriate.)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: Sorry about that. I think I may have accidentally deleted the account while copying the accounts. I've added the results. Elockid (Talk) 01:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
19 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The first user was already blocked as an "Obvious sock of User:Soapamalkanmaime" they did both a similar edit [1] and [2]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I actually came here independently to request a checkuser on Séphêranè, as I'm reasonably sure they're another Soapamalkanmaime sock (obsession with portals is a good clue). Dt Mos Ios is definitely a sock, as it had exactly the same editing patterns (changing "References" to "Notes and references", adding portal bars and changing reflist to the two-columned version). Number 57 13:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not that we both did the exact same edit, it's simply that I restored the referenced version of Dt Mos Ios (which had been undone without comment by Number 57). Séphêranè (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Clerk note: This is too obvious to require a CU. In addition to the similarities already mentioned, Soap likes user names that are French-like and often with accents (many of the socks had an abnormal interest in Swiss topics). Also, the sentence initially on their user page is almost identical to this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same subject matter: Swiss universities, technology and health care. New account is new pages and redirects by an obviously experienced Wikipedian, editing portals, using templates and citations in a sophisticated way. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2014 (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]
24 September 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

First few edits have all been to pages created/heavily edited by other Soapamalkanmaime socks (e.g. this article created by the Féd Poppy sock), with same arguments about article naming. As soon as I mentioned that I thought they were a sock, the edits started coming from the IP (which I have blocked as that has exactly the same edit pattern). After the IP was blocked, they started editing from the (sleeper) Ms Mitch Kwan account. Number 57 16:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Checkuser for sleepers - without being at all familiar with the history of this sock, the initial flag by User:Number 57 on two new SPAs suggests either further investigation - evidently not new user(s). In ictu oculi (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
19 January 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets





Possible sockmaster was previously very interested, to the point of pretty much being a single purpose account, in linking Militant atheism to New Atheism (a POV push that went against consensus on the talk page). Within the last 24 hours, three new accounts with similarly idiosyncratic user names have all been making edits to make that same link, with two of them seeming to tag team to change the redirect page. (I'm a little less sure of the behavioral link for the third account.) Also, they seem suspiciously familiar with procedures such as RM for them to be new users. -- Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another account. Compare editing times at Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and [3] and [4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 20 January, I've added Raruss Okssél. Newly created account, continues the interests of the previous accounts, even citing a diff by a previous account: [5], and adding the same source added by previous account: [6] (compare [7]). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 January, adding Wello Caldhau, very obviously the same person. At this point, I'm not entirely sure whether Lagoy is the master or not, but there is no doubt that every one of the accounts I've listed as subsequent socks is the same person. And there has been an outbreak of edit warring at Militant atheism, so this SPI needs attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with both JamesBWatson and My very best wishes about CU, especially with respect to who the sockmaster really might be. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Thanks. Is it likely, then, that the sockmaster is neither Lagoy nor Altenmann? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, thanks again. As for Lagoy, it really is a moot point, given the long-term inactivity of the account. I've been looking at Altenmann's edits, and I do not think it makes sense that it would be Altenmann, on behavioral grounds. That editor has been very active on Wikipedia before any of these socks appeared, and was not involved in the earlier discussions about Militant atheism; therefore the recent bout of edit warring at Militant atheism was probably just what it appeared to be on face value, especially since none of the socks came to Altenmann's rescue. Also the English language use is very different than the socks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: About Altenmann, the reasons against examining that account as the master are what I said immediately above. The reasons for running a CU – and I would suggest doing so, at least to settle the concerns that have been raised – rest upon the fact that, just after the known socks attempted to overturn the consensus about Militant atheism [8] and [9], Altenmann repeatedly tried to take up something like what the socks were doing [10], [11], [12], [13], and was blocked for edit warring. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding Pogou 56 56 43, drawn to my attention at my user talk, on 23 January. Edits are identical to other socks in terms of adding TED talk cite and formatting cite columns. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: @Ponyo: I have some uncertainties that I think should be looked at before we archive this. While I'm here, I'll answer Bbb23's question anyway: cf [17], [18]. That said, I've also noticed IP 108.203.77.86, which geolocates very differently, and yet: [19]. Also, should we examine whether or not Altenmann is associated with Soapamalkanmaime? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bbb23: perhaps that IP edit was a coincidence, but it came suspiciously close in time to the other sock edits and on a page dealing with the same subject matter. I've gone through all the other edits by that IP and I do not see anything else like it. I don't know whether the sockmaster could have done something to use that IP address temporarily (??). Please let me clarify about Altenmann. As you can see from comments by other users at this SPI, Altenmann is currently very active at the Militant atheism dispute, and some editors believe that Altenmann was socking during his now-over 3RR block via the socks listed here. If that's true, then Altenmann would actually be the Soapamalkanmaime sockmaster (and if it's not true, the accusations probably need to be put to rest, or they will keep cropping up and get in the way of more productive discussion). I do not think we have yet had a CU to determine whether or not Altenmann is connected to the new socks that are listed here. That seems to me to be an oversight. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bbb23: Please let me repeat what I said above, at 21:06, 23 January 2015: "About Altenmann, the reasons against examining that account as the master are what I said immediately above. The reasons for running a CU – and I would suggest doing so, at least to settle the concerns that have been raised – rest upon the fact that, just after the known socks attempted to overturn the consensus about Militant atheism [20] and [21], Altenmann repeatedly tried to take up something like what the socks were doing [22], [23], [24], [25], and was blocked for edit warring." Those are diffs; how one interprets the behavior is of course subjective. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, everyone. OK, so per Ponyo's analysis, there is no technical reason to associate the socking attributed to Altenmann with the socking attributed to Soapamalkanmaime. The socks that have been identified in this SPI (19 January 2015), are properly classified as socks of Soapamalkanmaime, not Altenmann, and have been blocked. That's all that I wanted to have made clear. As far as I am now concerned, we can consider this settled, and it can be closed and archived. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]
  • Yes, they look like obvious sockpuppet accounts per WP:DUCK. The only question is who was their sockmaster? And it is especially suspicious that they came to support Altenmann, given his SPI history. Yes, I think the checkuser is required. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It maybe also worth checking Haulwreakh (talk · contribs) and Chat piters (talk · contribs). My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm adding these two, both of which look like pure DUCK, per the comment by My very best wishes above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

information Administrator note A number of accounts all appear within a very short time, all start editing on the same subject, there are striking similarities among their edits, several of them show a degree of knowledge of Wikipedia that is most unusual for new editors, several of them try to get a reversal of a decision previously reached by consensus in a discussion, several of them create very similar user pages ... This looks rather like a duck. However, it is not entirely clear to me whether every one of the accounts is a sockpuppet, so I am requesting a CheckUser. The account suggested as the master (Lagoy) is long-since stale, but a CU should be able to help us decide whether all of the accounts are linked, and also whether there are other sleepers, which is by no means unlikely in view of the creation history of the listed accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following accounts are  Technically indistinguishable:
  • The following accounts are  Technically indistinguishable:
  • The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • The following accounts are  Technically indistinguishable:
  • Based on technical evidence and geolocation it's  Likely they are all the same user. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tryptofish: That would need to be a behavioural determination as both Altenmann and Lagoy are  Stale for checkuser purposes.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added three additional accounts to the third list of socks. I've also struck my incorrect note that Altenmann is stale. I have not checked the account however as no specific evidence/diffs have been presented linking the accounts to the socks.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pogou 56 56 43 (talk · contribs) is also confirmed to the accounts listed above and has been blocked. There are a number of ranges being used here, so I've started semi-protecting the most commonly targeted articles.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: User:Héh Dmée was not blocked as a result of the SPI nor is it a CU block. Thus, at best it is suspected. @Ponyo: would you have connected Héh Dmée to any of the accounts here? It is not close to being stale. Assuming that neither Lagoy nor Altenmann is the master, the grouped accounts above are essentially by narrow date ranges, although all of the accounts were created this month. If I were to change the master (this is mostly a note to myself) to one of the confirmed accounts, it would be Haulwreakh. Meanwhile, I'll wait for Ponyo to respond to my ping.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Now we have to clear up the supposed connection with User:Soapamalkanmaime. @Number 57: can you explain why you labeled Héh Dmée a puppet of Soapmalkanmaime in light of the findings here? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bbb23: After coming across several Soapamalkanmaime socks editing Swiss elections and referendum articles, I also watchlisted a load of articles typically targeted by them (religion/irreligion, Richard Dawkins and related articles – The God Delusion is a particular favourite) and keep an eye out for any new accounts making Soapamalkanmaime-type edits – usually adding portals, templates, making references two-columned (links are examples of Héh Dmée doing the same thing). Several of the accounts have also used accented letters. To me this was an obvious WP:DUCK, so I blocked it. Number 57 23:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, 130.223.2.2 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly another. Having been blocked twice in the past, it's been used again recently on the God Delusion article. Number 57 23:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Number 57: Now the IP (the University of Lausanne - that brings a lot of this stuff back to me) is interesting because it made the same edit the socks on this page made. How come the named socks on this page didn't grab you? Also, if you have a moment, it would be great if you took a look at some of the contributions made by the named accounts on this page to see if you think they are in facts puppets of Soap.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Bbb23: TBH, I did have a quick look at Chat piters when I spotted the edits on my watchlist. and think it was an obvious sock, but didn't get round to blocking it at the time - possibly as I was busy with something else (however, creating a user page as the first edit is another classic behavioural trait). I must have missed Latheae smitherii, but it does also look like another fairly obvious one. As they're confirmed as being the same as the others in that bloc, I won't analyse each of the rest, but looking at the others groups, similar behaviour to that I mentioned above is exhibited by accounts in all three other groups; Laugermann Xin Tran (columns, portals) and Jeezt S. Satez (columns) from the firts, Ms Cathe Atho (columns) from the second and Wello Caldhau (user page creation) from the fourth. Number 57 00:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) Might as well ping everyone as this is a conundrum. @Tryptofish: you said that Héh Dmée made edits like other socks, but your diffs are only of Héh Dmée. Do you have any diffs connecting Héh Dmée with the long list of socks on this page (forget Soapamalkanmaime for the moment). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Although nothing is perfect, Number 57's analysis has tipped the scale for me. The IP is also pivotal as the last time it was blocked it was a CU block. I've tagged all of the confirmed accounts. I've also blocked the IP for three months. Tryptofish, no need to add anything, thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tryptofish: With respect to 108.203.77.86 (talk · contribs · count), are there other edits besides that one that you think connect the IP to Soap or one of the accounts here? As for Altenmann, the Soap socks are stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tryptofish: As for the IP, geolocate is not always a reliable indicator of socking. As for Altenmann, the lack of a CU wasn't an "oversight". Ponyo expressly declined it for lack of evidence (diffs).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ponyo: I'm so tired of pinging editors. Did you want to reconsider your CU decline based on Tryptofish's latest comments?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: it certainly doesn't help that I only receive half of the pings that are sent at WP:SPI pages for some reason. Hopefully this will finally put this case to bed: Red X Unrelated I don't see any technical evidence linking Altenmann to the socks I've listed above.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ponyo: Thanks much. As far as I'm concerned, this case is closed. The only reason I'm not archiving it is because it's a technical violation of SPI procedures. As for the pings, check out WT:Notifications#Pings not working. The two I reported turned out to have a reason. Maybe yours does, too. If you want to take a moment when it happens and report it, might help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

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]

01 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

started ref Talk:Public Eye (Erklärung von Bern) on September 23, and Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry September 26, 2016 where I tried to explain what 'kind' of imho potentially sock puppetry occurred – affected wikis at English Wikipedia: Public Eye (Erklärung von Bern), Alternative Bank Schweiz, VCS Verkehrs-Club der Schweiz‎‎, potentially Limmat Valley (mid-2016), among others. Roland zh (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2016 (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]

  •  Additional information needed - @Roland zh: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Vanjagenije, and in reply of your three questions:
  1. as I mentioned Ekinger Cinguly, see or, and one of August 2016.  Comment: rather Lycra 8415 imho potentially sockmaster; as mentioned at the Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry, i'm not experienced in such questions as normally editing/gnoming.
  2. at Public Eye (Erklärung von Bern) seven edits on 09:19, 24 September 2016, and at VCS Verkehrs-Club der Schweiz as of 20:16, 1 October 2016 [edited Roland zh (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)], and by the not registered user;[reply]
  3. account(s) always used one single day, similar edits and themes edited, not really trolling/edit-warring, but not far from, but 'insisting' on the edits that were made before by the other account(s), rather, but not exclusively minor edits, but always several edits within short time, lacking also any edit summary, and aso sometimes replacing {reflist|30em} by {reflist|500px}, usually but not exclusively in Swiss-related wikis started by me. As mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry September 26, and October 1, 2016. additional: always starting the own user page by only using {User page} and no further information/infoboxes.
Hoping to give some helpful information, kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC) [edited Roland zh (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)][reply]

06 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Hi, again nearly ecactly the same procedure as reported, respectively continued by user:Tamara Tloftibê {BTW Lausanne agglomeriation} around 1 October, as per Talk:VCS Verkehrs-Club der Schweiz. Please see VCS version history Oct 3-6 and prior September 26, 2016 – affected wikis at English Wikipedia: VCS Verkehrs-Club der Schweiz, and prior cases at Public Eye (Erklärung von Bern), Alternative Bank Schweiz. Kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added User:83.228.128.0 (btw: also from Lausanne) on 8 September 2016, affected Public Eye (Erklärung von Bern), Roland zh (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2016 (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]

  • The IPs are too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Sockmaster showed up making very POV edits on a slew of tobacco-related articles, mostly related to Philip Morris International and their Heat-not-burn tobacco product products. The two sock accounts were created with two days of each other and became active on these topics at about the same as the two IPs. All of them have been putting a great deal of emphasis on recent JAMA editorials.

at the Philip Morris article
  • here is Tamara McNowers adding such content on Jan 3rd.
  • here is 144.85.187.242 restoring stuff on Jan 4th
  • here is Augustina von Meyszner at Philip Morris International on January 24, with
  • Weidong following with a few minutes with another JAMA editorial, then adding more.

Same kind of thing is going on at Heat-not-burn tobacco product:

  • diff Tamara McNowers
  • diff Augustina von Meyszner
  • diff Weidong

And at the talk page of that article, here is Augustina arguing for edits made by the '253 IP diff and Weidong diff.

Each of the three named accounts oddly took time to put the "userpage" tag on their userpage, the only diff to their userpages (the person must have read that having a redlinked userpage is suspicious or something): Tamara, Weidong, Augustina.

Also the oddly parallel elaborate usernames.

The behavior is plenty obvious as noted by User:QuackGuru in this diff; I don't think a CU is needed but perhaps a clerk will. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

A new account showed up today called Julia Kollowrange. The IP 144.85.236.239 is from Switzerland. QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

 In progress. I plan to post something no later than tomorrow. I'm waiting for answers to certain questions I have about the behavior here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


28 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Right back to it. Same everything. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

There appears to be a feud between Philip Morris International and the Swiss researchers. One of the socks is editing on another language. QuackGuru (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations on frwp point to a well-known POV-pusher with an impressive list of sockpuppets across the years and wikis. See fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Ediacara there and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soapamalkanmaime/Archive here. Popo le Chien throw a bone 04:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an active sock investigation on the frwp. 130.223.2.2 (talk · contribs) is a static IP from the University of Lausanne that was previously blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soapamalkanmaime/Archive#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments 3. At least two of the Swiss researchers are affiliated with the University of Lausanne. QuackGuru (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins and clerks, you should be aware that User:Popo le Chien has an alt account, User:Pplc and they disclose there that they edit for pay and that Philip Morris is their client.
The optics are terrible and it is alarming to me that Popo/Pplc has not disclosed their relationship with Philip Morris here, and in this case in particular where the Swiss researchers are specifically furious with Philip Morris' actions.... and that admins/clerks here are asking this person's opinion.
Just out of curiosity, User:Vanjagenije were you aware of Popo/Pplc's relationship with Philip Morris in this interaction? Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
gah, sorry. well now you do fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to hide here, but thanks for the FUD, Jytdog, you'll never disappoint. In the case at hand Ediacara is, let's say, an old acquaintance. Also and FWIW I don't think she belongs to the same team of researchers mentioned in the article(s) (and I agree that the report should be merged). Popo le Chien throw a bone 00:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the older IP numbers is pointing to the University of Lausanne. If the person is not one of the Swiss researchers it is someone has worked with them or knows them. QuackGuru (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll dig a little on the French side and ask a couple of friends, but that discussion was a bit old tbh (there's also a recurring claim that she dabbles in paid editing but I would find it suprising). The University isn't that big, so maybe they're just colleagues. And it's not like we can or should out her anyway, so would that make any difference? Popo le Chien throw a bone 01:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does not make a difference. But someone should let the editor know to stop adding failed verification content and original research all over the place. The editor is probably talking about the Wikipedia edits to the Swiss researchers or could be one of the Swiss researchers. After work they both could be sitting by the computer and deciding what to add together. PMI created this problem by contacting the University. Now it is being reported in the Wikipedia article. See "Consequently, Philip Morris International asked the University of Lausanne to retract the study." QuackGuru (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no preference if this report should be merged or moved. QuackGuru (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed + Theresa Sillketrucker (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: All the socks I've looked at in this sizable group have edited multiple other projects, many of which are the same, e.g., fr.wiki, Commons, Wikidata, and pt.wiki. I'm still at a loss to understand the motive behind the accounts. Although many edits are disruptive, a significant portion of the edits here are either constructive or at least harmless. Unfortunately, I don't think we've seen the end of these accounts. Up to you whether global locks are needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23, Popo le Chien, and QuackGuru: Should this case be merged into WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soapamalkanmaime? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: Yes, and these recent accounts are  Confirmed to Soapmalkanmaime. Please retag. Thanks very much everyone for the catch.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Soapamalkanmaime had an interest in Swiss referendums, editing them under numerous accounts including Paul Itiqu Fedtr (talk · contribs), Intréac Retropack (talk · contribs) and Féd Poppy (talk · contribs) amongst others. They had several habits that were clearly identifiable, including adding the Switzerland portal to articles and using slightly odd phrases like "votation" (both in one go here, votation here and both here (when creating an article)); the portal adding went beyond this subject area (see repeated references to adding portals in the archive). They also have a long history of using accounts with first name/surname, often with diacritics (a load listed here).

Adèle Fisher is a reasonably new account (February 2018) that has also started editing Swiss referendum articles, and this edit (adding the portal bar and using the term "votations") was a dead giveaway. They have also gone on a spree of adding portals to other articles.[26][27]

In addition, their userpage text (Hello and welcome. Let's talk!) is somewhat reminiscent of Intréac Retropack (Welcome and thanks for you interest. Let's discuss !) Number 57 13:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: As you're familiar with Soapamalkanmaime, I was wondering if you could take a quick look at what appears to be a pretty open and shut case as it would be good to get a quick close. Cheers, Number 57 15:07, 14 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]

24 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

An IP suddenly emerging at Swiss referendums (one of Soapamalkanmaime's pet subjects) and already knowing how to do stuff like file multiple RMs suggests this isn't a new user. Number 57 10:59, 24 June 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]

  • IP edits too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Bolarno began editing a few days after Adèle Fisher, Soapamalkanmaime's most recent confirmed sock (and the day after the IP edit above, although that was not confirmed). They have a lot of other overlap:

  • Bolarno immediately leapt into editing List of monetary reformers and Monetary reform , relatively obscure, low-traffic pages that have attracted very few edits, including large recent bursts by Adèle Fisher.
  • They also quickly leaped into relatively obscure policy discussions, ones a new user would be unlikely to know about (eg. template talk pages.) Most recently, they started a discussion complaining about how they frequently see abuse of the fringe label, which seems implausible for a new user with so few edits - they'd just encountered a WP:FRINGE complaint, yes, but it was their first one ever (at least on this account), so their apparent frustration with having their edits frequently meet resistance on WP:FRINGE grounds seems suspicious.
  • The complaint about censorship when their edits meet resistance seems to have been a point that Adèle Fisher fixated on as well.
  • Bolarno is deeply opposed to Fractional Reserve Banking and supportive of Full Reserve Banking (here, the dispute that led to the WP:FRINGE issues above); this was the topic of the Swiss Sovereign Money Initiative (which an area Adèle Fisher was fixated on, especially immediately before being blocked). Fractional Reserve Banking vs. Full Reserve Banking was Adèle Fisher's focus on the articles where the two editors overlap; see also here and note both the similar tone and topic compared to the discussion with Lawrencekhoo in the first link.

-- Aquillion (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I have no connection with Adèle Fisher or Soapamalkanmaime. I have requested CheckUser. My contribution to the Fractional Reserve Banking and related pages is based on science, not politics. This is a topic that is widely discussed around the world, and new knowledge has been generated. My contributions are citing central banks, well-known professors, and other reliable sources. I have previously edited various subjects without login, but decided that I need a proper login. Bolarno (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • It's all  Stale for CU purposes. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Placed on hold to allow the user to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked and tagged Bolarno as I find the explanation they above unconvincing especially as they're unable to remember details of the IP addresses they used. To have the experience necessary to successfully navigate and use Wikipedia ([28][29][30]), they'd need to have had extensive experience as an IP editor and would, at least, be able to point to some of the edits they've have made. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


First a series of rather innocuous edits over unrelated biographies [31], then cropping images [32], which very much reminded me of what a previously blocked sock Weidong Sanquian did around this time last year. Then the account directly jumped into one of Soapamalkanmaime's pet topic from last year - tobacco (specifically PMI products). It's a bit surprising to see an account that has barely two hours to it go straight for wiktext editing and adding complete reference templates[33]. Requesting CU as a Swiss-based IP address would definitely be a giveaway.

@Bbb23: You have some experience with the case: thoughts? Popo le Chien throw a bone 17:20, 26 December 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) 18:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13 January 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

@Bbb23: You missed one of the blocks - Adeline Canderalis --DannyS712 (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • In my view, there is a tremendous amount of cross-wiki abuse here, but I know of no history of globally locking these accounts. What do you think, -revi?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Block reason of "311+345 clarity" mentions Ediacara (frwiki LTA page), do you see any similarity? — regards, Revi 13:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@-revi: Yes. Soap has always focused on environmental/ecological/biodiversity issues. One of the Edicara account's main interests is GMO-related articles. For a good example of multiple Soap socks editing the same article as Edicara, look at Regulation of genetically modified organisms in Switzerland. Moreover, Soap is often interested in legal and quasi-legal articles related to the same topics. Finally, I read the French LTA page (we should have one given this master's history), and their description often tallies with my own observations.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good, all locked along with Ediacara. — regards, Revi 14:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I could copy/paste my request from 2018 and simply update the links as the behaviour is so predictable:

First a series of rather innocuous edits over unrelated biographies and cropping images [34][35], which very much reminded me of what a previously blocked sock Weidong Sanquian (early 2018) or Tilda Dermott Molyneux (Dec. 2018) did. Then the account directly jumps into one of Soapamalkanmaime's pet topics - tobacco or Swiss politics. Requesting CU as a Swiss-based IP address would definitely be a giveaway. Note: I've opened a similar request on frwp (accounts usually are active on both wikis), and secondary socks might be difficult to identify if like this one they were created more than 3 months ago. Popo le Chien throw a bone 13:44, 19 November 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]

17 December 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Pro forma. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:17, 17 December 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 to the last batch.  Blocked and tagged, Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23 January 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The IP is Swiss-based, just like our friend, and the user follows the usual pattern name/first name, both with dubious edits related to tobacco. Previous batch (November & December) should be fresh enough to run a comparison. Popo le Chien throw a bone 07:43, 23 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soapamalkanmaime/Archive&oldid=1135917139"