Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi838r/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gabi838r

Gabi838r (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

03 July 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Doug Weller talk 11:53, 3 July 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]

Master created after IPs blocked, when blocked then created David8374, when that was blocked created Dave7475.  Confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

08 July 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Pro-forma filing -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 8 July 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]

18 July 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

A new account appears in one of the articles where the sock is mostly actively present and restores his/her reversion. [1] I think it's obvious this page needs a strong protection to prevent these new sock accounts from getting accress to this page. Ayaltimo (talk) 07:31, 18 July 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  Blocked and tagged Doug Weller talk 10:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 July 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Username and restoring the Roy744 sock's edit here:

I suggest protection for Yohannes IV and Tekle Haymanot, as they are targeted by two sockmasters, this case and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZemenfesKidus Pikavoom Talk 05:41, 10 July 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]

27 July 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

On 1 June 2022, 2A02:6680:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 tries to edit war in a piece of info based on a misrepresentation of the sources [6] [7], third time 2a00:a040:181:ac00::/54 makes same edit [8].

On 26 July 2022‎, Tofu54401 makes same edit [9], a day later Pokinan makes the same edit [10] and both 2a00:a040:181:ac00::/54 and Tofu54401 edit the article minutes after Pokinan [11] [12].

Note that 2A02:6680:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 was independently blocked on 2 July 2022 by Acroterion for edit warring, adding misrepresentation of sources, attempts to recruit proxies to edit around restrictions.

I'm not sure whether it's sock or meat, but it very much looks like one of the two. Asking CU only to compare the two accounts and to look for other accounts. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this comment after the accounts were CU-blocked: Tofu54401 also invited another editor to 'help' them at two occasions [13] [14]. Especially note "manger" here [15] and here [16] [17]. This leaves no doubt that Tofu54401 is the same user as 2A02:6680:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:03, 27 July 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]

15 August 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Immediatedly after i openend a case against an IP for edit warring [[18]] which lead to range block. A new user suddenly shows up with a series of edits related to the ip's edits in order to ‘‘complicate’’ reversion of the blocked ip edits. [[19]], [[20]] YonasJH (talk) 09:46, 15 August 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]

29 August 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This new user is re adding the content previously edited by another sock of Gabi838r(Tewodros7107)[[21]][[22]] YonasJH (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC) YonasJH (talk) 21:09, 29 August 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]

  • It's not a perfect match, but Kobo3737 is at least  Highly likely to Tewodros7107 and  Likely to several other previously founds socks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave it to a clerk to figure out the best tagging. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged, closing. Spicy (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20 September 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Duck:

Pinging some users who have engaged with them on talk, so they know whom they're dealing with: Cordless Larry, Vsmith, Doug Weller. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too involved, sorry. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, the ping was just to let you know so you wouldn't have to waste your time discussing with this sock. Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:15, 20 September 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]

  • FYI Ponyo: you've tagged the sock as blocked indefinitely without actually indeffing them (probably my fault for causing confusion with my block noted above). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Fixed now.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23 September 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Blocking as a WP:DUCK case - see this, this and User talk:Tamart0290. Might merit a sleeper check. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

FYSA: Someone claiming to be "Tamart 2090" (presumably Tamart0290?) is still making their case, via the 2 IP addresses I added above. Diffs from my user talk page: 06:31, 23 September 2022‎ by 46.31.102.8; 01:45, 24 September 2022‎ by 213.137.72.97. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They've since moved on to a named account, Hdidi80, which I just blocked. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 September 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This suggests block evasion. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:52, 25 September 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]

27 September 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another duck:

Since they've been making several accounts now to evade their block it might be a good idea to do a CU check too. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:10, 27 September 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]

01 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Duck:

CU please look for sleepers. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:02, 1 October 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]

02 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I've blocked this IP address per WP:DUCK but am recording here for posterity. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 2 October 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]

03 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Three other ducky IPs, all of them already blocked by Cordless Larry but mentioning them here for posterity.

For the 2A02:6680 perhaps a range block should be considered. The smallest range containing both the one from yesterday's case section and the one today is Special:Contributions/2A02:6680:2101:7EE6::/45, which looks like it hasn't too much collateral.

One thing to note is that 188.64.206.225 in this edit repeated an edit made before that by Gabi838r socks [48] [49] but that was actually first made by Ethiopique (previously Zemenfeskidus, SPI) [50]. Ethiopique also uses sometimes inexplicably different IP ranges (which might indicate meat), but has much better English language skills than Gabi838r socks. Nevertheless, Ethiopique socks and Gabi838r are very often found on the exact same pages, which might indicate a wider meat issue. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two other, still unblocked IPs:

Both belong to the /45 range also indicated above, which should probably be blocked. Pinging Cordless Larry, who blocked the other IPs here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:31, 5 October 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]

05 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another duck:

Also note the naming pattern. CU please look for sleepers. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Another duck: [74], which follows closely this action of previous sock User:Tamart0290. LandLing 14:53, 5 October 2022 (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]

  • This account is  Confirmed to be evading active blocks and is  Likely to a bunch of the socks in the archive.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged, closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Continues edit wars of previous sock Jetzr739:

Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I guess it's just a formality (and/or possibly an additional layer of headache?), but isn't this user WP:3X by now? (I had done the same with a different sockmaster, Hoaeter, in the same topic area - not that that stopped them) By my count they're at least "11X" (2 of which are just from October). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Duck:

It may also be useful to note here that there is a pattern where Zaikaidu (talk · contribs) makes an edit and Gabi838r socks undo it: [99] [100] for the 1st series above, [101] [102] for the 2nd series above, [103] for the 3rd series above. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:37, 12 October 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]

12 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Reinstated one of the socks' edits on Taytu Betul (see here). Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I semi-protected Taytu Betul for 1 month. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Hello,

Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:38, 17 October 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]

18 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another one:

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:00, 18 October 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]

21 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Quack:

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:45, 21 October 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]

23 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[116] vs [117] [118] [119]; naming pattern ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:48, 23 October 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]

2 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Duck test: [120] vs [121] LandLing 11:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Add for convenience: [122] vs [123]; [124] vs [125]; [126] vs [127]; [128] vs [129]; naming pattern.

 Clerk assistance requested: any reason why this case section does not currently show up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Cases? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Apaugasma - the filing was missing the {{SPI case status}} template, which the bot looks for. Fixed. :) firefly ( t · c ) 15:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see Firefly beat me to the fix and explanation, but I'll add that this usually happens when people copy a case from the archive (where cases don't include the case status template) as a template for new filings. @Landroving Linguist: It's usually best to use the wizard in the collapsed box (How to open an investigation) at the top of WP:SPI, or twinkle's "ARV" menu for making reports. In this case, Firefly and I both saw it (in my case via the IRC monitoring feed, I'm guessing the same was true for Firefly), but malformatted cases can go unnoticed for long periods of time if nobody sees it at the time. As a second sidenote, @Apaugasma: {{clerk request}} does not ping or otherwise notify the clerks, it's just an inline comment template for ease of navigation – when you notice formatting issues like this, it's often best to raise it at WT:SPI or on a clerk's talk page, because the comment raising the issue can also go unnoticed otherwise. Anyway:  In progress. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very  Likely,  No sleepers immediately visible,  Blocked and tagged. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[130] vs [131] [132] [133]; [134] vs [135]; naming pattern ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:35, 8 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]

08 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This IP range was reported here previously on 27 July 2022 (some evidence is given there). At the time it was already blocked independently for three months on 2 July 2022 by Acroterion. It started editing again on the day the block expired, 2 October 2022, obviously by Gabi838r ([136] vs [137]; [138] vs [139]). It has since been used by them quite a bit, with at least ca. 50 edits that are directly traceable to them. Recent evidence includes, e.g., [140] vs [141] [142] [143]; [144] vs [145] [146]; [147] vs [148].

Can we have another range block? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:05, 8 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]

13 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This IP, all of whose edits are reverting earlier reversions of Gabi838r's sock edits, belongs to the 2A02:6680:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range reported here last week (archive).

It would appear that the 2A02:6680:1104:E5EB:0:0:0:0/64 range blocked then was too small. The smallest range containing the /64 IPs (all of which are Gabi838r) and the IP reported here is 2a02:6680::/34 (result from the IP range calc tool). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:11, 13 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]

18 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

An account again, but duck:

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:55, 18 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]

02 December 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Pet51500 reinstated an edit by Gabi838r socks : [160] vs [161] (the Bbv810 account here is blocked but not tagged) [162] [163] [164] [165] (evidence for IP range in the archive).

However, Pet51500 also reinstated edits by two accounts (Yaeq00, Shehb32) blocked and tagged by DatGuy as belonging to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ethiopique (previously ZemenfesKidus): [166] vs [167] [168]

Yaeq00 reinstated an edit by Gabi838 socks [169] vs [170] [171] [172] (Pet51500 then also reinstated a similar edit [173]).

I've taken a close look at Yaeq00 and Shehb32's edits (who have clearly been shown to be the same user here), but found very little evidence directly linking them to Ethiopique. Often they edit the same pages, but mostly their edits are very different in nature. Shehb32 did reinstate at least one Ethiopique edit [174] vs [175], but as a ctrl-f on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gabi838r/Archive will show, Gabi838r has done this a number of times. It may indicate a meat issue, but it does not show that Gabi838r is Ethiopique. One thing that differentiates Gabi838r socks from Ethiopique socks is Gabi838r's distinct username pattern, another that Gabi838r has bad English.

Ronen618, another account with the same username pattern, reinstated Shehb32's edits [176] vs [177]; [178] vs [179].

Given the rate of recent activity this may warrant a sleeper check. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding Tei13 to this list. Their only edit (thus far) is a partial restore of Gabi838r's preferred version of Taytu Betul: compare [180] with [181]. FYI I'd already blocked Bbv810 because WP:DUCK — I guess I forgot to tag it, but might as well wait and see how this shakes out. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Dyyevx73638 to the list: reinstating the other socks' edits [182] vs [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188]; username pattern. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

New user User:Chfv649 is restoring content of Gabi838r sock (Tamart0290). [[189]] vs [[190]] [[191]] Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

03 December 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Duck: [192] vs [193] [194]. CU since there were a bunch of accounts last time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:44, 3 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]

04 December 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Duck: [195] vs [196] [197] [198]; [199] vs [200] [201] [202]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:32, 4 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]

14 December 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[203] vs [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:24, 14 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]

16 December 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

For 2A02:6680::/34 see the archive, 27 July 2022, 08 November 2022 (2) and 13 November 2022. They've only been moderately active since their last block expired, but mainly reporting to relate to the other IP.

77.137.71.59:

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding 2a00:a040:180::/43, on whom see the archives (27 July and 15 August 2022), and now [222] vs [223] and [224] vs [225] [226]. The /43 range is the smallest range containing both this new IP and the IPs diffed in the archive [227] [228] [229] –note that the last one here is CU blocked. Also the same country as the other two IPs above; might be meat rather than sock but it's clearly one of the two. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 46.31.102.109 again from the same country as IPs above, who is stale but for future reference: [230] vs [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] and [241] vs [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251]. All the September 2022 edits of the /22 range appear to be them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:33, 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]

  • I can't see any very recent edits from these IPs that clearly fit the pattern of Gabi838r's editing so I'm going to close this as is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17 December 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[252] vs [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262]

[263] vs [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] [272] [273]

CU please look for sleepers. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:17, 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]

30 December 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[274] [275] vs [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] etc. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:13, 30 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]

30 December 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[281] vs [282][283][284][285] (Semien Province) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:46, 30 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]

01 January 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[286] vs [287] [288] [289] [290] etc. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:23, 1 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]

  •  Confirmed,  Blocked and tagged. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 January 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Duck:

CU please look for others. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:16, 10 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]

21 January 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[309] vs [310] [311] ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:14, 21 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]

06 February 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Deleting similar content [312] [313]. Begemder is a favorite for the sock. They're also seems to be affiliated IP's editing on behalf of the sock or they're using proxies. Continuing removal of content [314], or reverting my edits on another article [315]. Magherbin (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Yes, e.g. [316] vs [317] [318] [319]; [320] vs [321]; etc.

CU please look for others.

@Magherbin: I'm not looking for Gabi838r socks as actively as I used to so a lot more will slip through the nets. This means you probably better ask for CU each time. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 February 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Pretty obvious continues edit warring where last sock left off [322] [323] [324] Magherbin (talk) 17:23, 10 February 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]

11 February 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

restoring sock edits from last report [325] Magherbin (talk) 23:25, 11 February 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 February 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:31, 13 February 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]

15 February 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Restored sock edits from last report by me [337] Magherbin (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I blocked Tsigit72010, who was restoring the previous sock Khtes247's edits at Zara Yaqob. I've listed them above. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 March 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Popped up out of nowhere, asking me on my Talk page to edit Tewodros II because "a lot of important information got removed from there including Tewodros mother origin. This is misinformation." Apparently materials added by Yebd00183 were reverted about a month ago. However, over the last 15 years I have made just one edit on that page. Doesn't pass the smell test. -- llywrch (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC) llywrch (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Tewodros II, about which Geysb819 has been contacting editors, was recently protected for a year because of Gabi838r socks, not only Yebd00183, but also Shehb32, Uefjm19067, and Marcus529, as before these accounts also Tofu54401.

Asking other editors on their talk pages to proxy for them is a typical Gabi838r behavior, cf. [338][339][340][341][342][343][344][345][346].

Regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it helps with this investigation, Bbb23 had blocked Loenin1850 (which I added above) since the last CU request. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 March 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[347] vs [348][349][350][351][352] ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:07, 22 March 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]

23 March 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Re the first 3: non-blocked account [353] vs non-confirmed but blocked socks [354][355], which however are different from previous confirmed socks [356][357]. I suspect this is because the last confirmed sock making the earlier edit was revdelled (cf. [358]) for copyvio, but it would be good to have all the accounts here confirmed.

Re Orucy830: [359] vs [360][361][362][363][364][365]; [366] vs [367][368][369][370][371][372][373][374][375]

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:22, 23 March 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]

The following accounts are  Confirmed

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

24 March 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[376] vs [377][378][379][380][381][382][383][384] ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:01, 24 March 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]

  • Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

25 April 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

All of these account keep making the exact same reverts on the article Mengistu Haile Mariam. [385][386][387] with very similar edit summaries. [388][389] If you compare that summary with the post on the talk page, you will realize that they are making the same arguments and upset about the fact that the word "slave" instead of "servant" was used. But just from looking at the edits it becomes pretty obvious that these accounts are run by the same person محرر البوق (talk) 00:52, 25 April 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 April 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Username & edits match with User:Desta181. who was previously blocked due to sockpuppetry. User has also created User:Desta838 Matthew Tyler-Harrington (aka mth8412) (talk) 09:41, 27 April 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 May 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Duck: [390] vs [391][392][393]; [394] vs [395][396][397]

Asking CU to look for sleepers. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma before I look for sleepers, could you give me something to justify running a check in the first place? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roy, did you see the diffs above? I'm not really sure what more would be needed? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dooh. No, missed that entirely. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 27 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]

23 June 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I had already blocked Shine6197 & Shhs729 (WP:QUACK), but now with two other (well-established) accounts, I believe there may be others in the drawer.

  • Yesterday (about 10 days after partial protection expired) at Taytu Betul, Shine6197 edited ([398]) to make the same assertion — though not exactly the same edit — as Bbv810 ([399]), Tei13 ([400]) & 2a02:6680:2102:6b2:bc5b:bbb1:48c5:1e30 ([401]) had made before I partially protected the page (in Dec. 2022) for 6 months. (Yesterday I bumped this up to indefinite.) Today Ras mekonnen4334, a long-established account that would be unaffected by the protection, effectively restored ([402]) Shine6197's edit.
  • Arnauld d'abbadie edited Wube Haile Maryam in April ([403]). Shhs729 edited that article the next day, ([404]), restoring confirmed sock Sjield37's March edits ([405]), while also citing the same source from Shine6197 & Ras mekonnen4334's edits to Taytu Betul (again [406], [407]). Shine6197 yesterday added a page number to Shhs729's citation ([408]).
  • Ras mekonnen4334 & Arnauld d'abbadie have both made numerous edits to Arnaud-Michel d'Abbadie (e.g. [409], [410]), as well as Antoine Thomson d'Abbadie ([411], [412]) and other 19th-century Ethiopia-related articles.
  • I'm listing Tsigit72010 & Yeudg739 for the sake of documentation. I blocked them as per WP:QUACK back in February, but there wasn't an open SPI case at the time.

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Gyrofrog (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Ras mekonnen4334 may be unrelated from a CU perspective, but they at least act as meat for Gabi838r:

All the articles edited by Ras mekonnen4334 are typical Gabi8383r haunts. In some articles they restore Gabi8383r edits (see diffs above), but in some other articles they add entirely new, apparently high-quality content, while discarding the scrubby old Gabi8383r edits which many socks previously had tried to reinstate. This makes me think that Ras mekonnen4334 may not be Gabi8383r, but someone who is in contact with Gabi8383r and occasionally restores their edits.

One user who has been found to coordinate with Gabi8383r in the past is (the socks of) Ethiopique. Given what I have noted before about the relation between these two users (see especially here and here; mainly editing the same pages and reinstating each other's edits, while Ethiopique has much better English and produces apparently qualitative content using RS), I think there is a good chance that Ras mekonnen4334 is Ethiopique. A CU-check of Ras mekonnen4334 and Arnauld d'abbadie against Ethiopique would be ideal, though Ethiopique is probably stale (RoySmith?). If further examination using CU is not possible I recommend blocking Ras mekonnen4334 and any accounts which confirm to them CU-wise as suspected meatpuppets of Gabi838r. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apaugasma, good detective work. Speaking of overlap with Ethiopique, see WP:SPI/BasedHistorian PHD (07 June 2023 case; currently open) where I wondered the same thing about those accounts. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Yejju has edits by Ridp1749 ([434]) & Yeudg739 ([435]) (previously mentioned above, too stale for CU); 2607:fea8:a760:589:90fb:6860:717c:c361 ([436]), 2a02:6680:2106:a4d5:e03e:5299:f75d:4a55 ([437]), 2601:280:cb03:48d0:f077:49f5:6311:470f ([438]) (QUACK IPs, last of these recent enough for CU); BaklavaEnjoyer ([439]) (suspected Ethiopique sock, blocked 28 April by El C); & most recently Ras mekonnen4334 ([440]) (who was able to get around the page protection that El C had applied). Except for the last, their edits restore the same (or very similar) version of the article. I guess MEAT is more likely, as they might have otherwise shown up via the CU. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The series of Yejju diffs given here by Gyrofrog is an example of myriad Gabi838r socks reinstating the same old edit with bad English and bad sources [441][442][443][444][445], and then Ras mekonnen4334 making a completely different, apparently high-quality edit [446].
But BaklavaEnjoyer, who very likely is an Ethiopique sock indeed ([447] vs [448]; [449] vs [450]; [451] vs [452]; [453] vs [454]), was also reinstating the Gabi838r edit in Gyrofrog's Yejju diffs ([455] - note that this is two months before Ras mekonnen4334 made the new, different edit [456]). This is what makes me think that Ras mekonnen4334, who like Ethiopique knows how to produce seemingly qualitative content and also reinstated many Gabi838r edits (see the bullet-list of diffs above), is also Ethiopique.
To further establish this, a CU check of Ras mekonnen4334/Arnauld d'abbadie against BaklavaEnjoyer would be very helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Shine6197 and Shhs729 are  Confirmed to Gabi838r.
  • Ras mekonnen4334 and Arnauld d'abbadie are  Confirmed to each other, but appear to be Red X Unrelated to Gabi838r. RoySmith (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm splitting out Ras mekonnen4334 and their socks into a different case - there's something fishy going on there, I see another account as well and they're all editing the same articles (and breaching WP:CWW in the process, after a warning from Diannaa. Will block them from the new case; all the other accounts seem to have been dealt with, closing. Girth Summit (blether) 09:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

28 July 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[457] vs [458]; [459] vs [460] For the use of the 2A02:6680::/X range by Gabi838r (the relevant range is much too broad to be blocked), see abundantly the archives. In combo with the un pattern, it's a duck. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:28, 28 July 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]

The following are very  Likely to previously confirmed Gabi838r socks, and with the behaviour I'm just tagging as confirmed:

Blocking etc. Girth Summit (blether) 13:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

28 July 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Duck: [461] vs [462][463]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:19, 28 July 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]

29 July 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[464] vs [465]. Cf. the immediately preceding reports. Since they seem to be making multiple accounts these last few days CU please look for others. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:39, 29 July 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]

  • Duck; new range, but similar in other respects. Don't see any others. Blocked and tagged, closing. Girth Summit (blether) 09:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07 August 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Literally admitted to having a previous Wikipedia account prior to it getting blocked and making a new one. Claims to have "forgotten its password"[466] Is also bringing back the reverted edits of another sockpuppet[467] محرر البوق (talk) 18:23, 7 August 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]

  • Both users are already blocked. No need to run a check here. Salvio giuliano 22:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07 August 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Literally admitted to having a previous Wikipedia account prior to it getting blocked and making a new one. Claims to have "forgotten its password"[468] Is also bringing back the reverted edits of another sockpuppet[469] محرر البوق (talk) 18:23, 7 August 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]

  • Both users are already blocked. No need to run a check here. Salvio giuliano 22:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18 August 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

 Confirmed, for the record. Courcelles (talk) 14:43, 18 August 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]

  • Just filed for the record. Blocked and tagged. Closing. Courcelles (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Compare this by Moret8391 with this by Ueyeg6383 (who is already blocked as a suspected sock of Gabi838r). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Since the last SPI report from 18 August 2023, I had blocked Suriav6380 and Hdhdhz8 as per WP:DUCK. I'm adding them above for the sake of documentation. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[470][471][472] vs [473][474][475]

The page definitely needs to get protected at this point because this is just completely ridiculous. He just doesn't give up, he is also reverting the Sarsa Dengel article as well. محرر البوق (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

The common range of these three IPs is, unfortunately Special:Contributions/2a02:6680::/34. That range is indeed extensively used by Gabi838r (abundant evidence in the archives), but also is much too broad to be blocked (see, e.g., here).

@محرر البوق: what I used to do when I was more active here was to regularly (once or twice a week) check 2a02:6680::/34, as well as Special:Contributions/2a00:a040:180::/43 (another range extensively used by Gabi838r), and just revert all edits on WP:ARBHORN-related subjects, using an edit summary like "rv likely block evasion (Gabi838r)". At time this involved a bit of care to sort out the non-ARBHORN-related edits, but since edits would be grouped together in either clearly Gabi838r or clearly non-Gabi838r, it often was rather straightforward. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gabi838r/Archive&oldid=1187915217"