AndresHerutJaim

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

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

24 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

AndresHerutJaim is currently blocked until 06:36, 29 April 2011. Since his block an Argentinian IP (on User:AndresHerutJaim he openly admits to being from Argentina) has carried on editing in his general editing area, which is the Israel-Palestine area and tangentially associated articles. The wikistalk report shows the overlap, which does not include template overlap (AndresHerutJaim and IP). The edits from 20 April are quite revealing too, for example the IP made this edit at 21:56, then AndresHerutJaim makes his firs edit of the day with this edit at 21:58, probably having realised he was not logged in before. The IP has been used sparingly prior to the block on 22 April, probably without realising he wasn't logged in, but has been used much more frequently since the block. When everything is added up, the conclusion that AndresHerutJaim is evading his block using an IP seems clear to me. O Fenian (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
26 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

A Buenos Aries IP turns up to revert an edit previously done by the previous IP, an edit that AndresHerutJaim told others to revert for him here. Note the suspicious post here as well, and this, this and this all reinstating the edits of the previous IP sockuppet. O Fenian (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a second virtually identical IP, same edits, same articles. O Fenian (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. For future reference, the 157.92.44.72 IP belongs to the University of Buenos Aires. Cambalachero (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
15 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Argentina based Special:Contributions/AndresHerutJaim is currently blocked and indefinitely topic banned (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive112#AndresHerutJaim and User_talk:AndresHerutJaim#April_2012).

Sean.hoyland - talk 06:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
28 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Argentina based Special:Contributions/AndresHerutJaim is currently blocked and indefinitely topic banned (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive112#AndresHerutJaim and User_talk:AndresHerutJaim#April_2012).

For specificity of focus see these edits [7],[8], [9] Dlv999 (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

It's  Possible, bordering on  Likely, that Jabotito48 is a match to Sebinisra91 (talk · contribs). TNXMan 13:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety talk 21:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
02 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Special:Contributions/AndresHerutJaim is currently blocked and indefinitely topic banned (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive112#AndresHerutJaim and User_talk:AndresHerutJaim#April_2012).

This abuse of multiple accounts is disruptive to the topic area, it is hard enough to gain consensus and make progress with articles as it is without this sock account jumping into articles making sweeping reverts without explanation or discussion on the talk pages. Dlv999 (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

The edit to 1929 Palestine riots by Telefonica de Argentina Special:Contributions/190.49.202.168 before Tutangamon's edit looks related. Would autoblocks help ? They don't seem to have been used for his previous socks. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
02 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Special:Contributions/AndresHerutJaim is currently blocked and indefinitely topic banned (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive112#AndresHerutJaim and User_talk:AndresHerutJaim#April_2012).

  1. [21], [22]
  2. [23], [24]
  3. [25], [26]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
18 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Same pattern as other socks; created when last sock was exposed and blocked, immediately jumps into edit-warring on I/P articles, including repeating edits of previous socks: [31], [32], [33] RolandR (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
21 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


First edit 09:35, 19 June 2012. Then these contributions. So far, all (first) 13 edits on June 21 are a rv without es of my reverts, undoing sock 8HGasma -- which is another sock of the same master. diffs: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. The sockmaster has announced to come back: I'm here to stay, one way or another [47]. DePiep (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Account created June 19, the day after the sock master's previous sock User:Bach Aria was blocked. The user edits the very same pages as previous socks User:8HGasma and User:Jabotito48, specifically performing the same edits here and here and here. Here he edits the not frequently edited article History of the Jews of Argentina. Frederico1234 (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
02 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

I think it's worth checking whether JosHall 93 is another AndresHerutJaim sock. 

M[48]	S1[49]	All articles edited by JosHall 93[50]
x	x	1948 Arab–Israeli War ‎ 
x		1978 South Lebanon conflict ‎ 
		Altalena Affair ‎ 
x	x	Amir Eshel ‎
x		Battle of Jenin ‎ 
x	x	History of Israel ‎ 
x		IMI Tavor TAR-21 ‎ 
	x	Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries ‎ 
		Lebanon
	x	List of massacres in Israel ‎ 
x	x	List of wars 1945–1989 ‎ 
x	x	Mandatory Palestine ‎ 
x		Operation Wrath of God ‎ 
		Timeline of events in the Cold War ‎ 
x	x	USS Liberty incident ‎

Note that I have not watchlisted this report and I won't be reviewing it. This is a trolling counter-measure per WP:SHUN. If clerks/admins have any questions, please contact me on my talk page and I will respond there.

I would like to propose that admins start locking the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area down to address the persistent sockpuppetry issues. I recently had to request re-protection for an article here because socks returned as soon as the semi-protection expired. I think it is worth considered implementing automatic one month semi-protection on all of the articles edited by a proven sockpuppet in these ARBPIA cases on completion of the SPI as part of the standard workflow. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


08 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Sock master's latest sock User:JosHall 93 was blocked 6 July. The day after, the account User:Farkur is created. here User:Farkur edits 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the same article the socks User:JosHall 93, User:8HGasma, User:Tutangamon and User:Jabotito48 has edited the last two month. here User:Farkur adds "Israeli victory" to Battle of Jenin, the same thing the sock User:JosHall 93 wrote here. Sock master User:AndresHerutJaim edited Battle of Jenin here, exhibiting the same pro-Israeli POV. Both User:Farkur and the sock master has edited the Gulf of Sidra incident (1981), showing a common interest in a not very well known topic. Frederico1234 (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Farkur (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed. Also blocked some of his ranges. Elockid (Talk) 19:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Up to 03:07, 16 July, User:Mediotic had made 9 edits to 6 separate articles or talk pages. The sock master and his socks had made edits to all these pages as well, suggesting a strong common interest. here User:Mediotic writes that "Regarding the Arab casualties killed by the British during the riots, they were not "victims", but rioters and baby-killers. Just to clarify." This is consistent with User:AndresHerutJaim's views regarding Palestine-Israel.

As for his edits after 03:07: These were just a series of reverts of User:Dalai lama ding dong, using an edit summary apparently burrowed from another user (diff). Those edits were exluded from the analysis as User:Mediotic most probably had just followed User:Dalai lama ding dong edit history, making any correlation (or lack thereof) with the sock master's editing patterns irrelevant. Frederico1234 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed and  IP blocked. Elockid (Talk) 19:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just blocked it. Marking for close. Elockid (Talk) 00:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Taurui01 edits the same pages as is sock master and his other socks. here he edits an Argentina-related article. The sock master is from Argentina. here Taurui01 make an edit with a pro-Israeli POV, consistent with the sock master's POV. Frederico1234 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
05 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Looks like another sock of Argentina based AndresHerutJaim. 1) Editor interaction reports showing overlaps with previous accounts. AndresHerutJaim Sebinisra91 Jabotito48 Tutangamon 8HGasma Bach Aria Taurniul JosHall 93 Farkur Mediotic Taurui01 2) May be a clue... The User:Pararrei page has a picture of Jorge Luis Borges who, apart from being a genius, was of course Argentinian. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've blocked them and  IP blocked also. Elockid (Talk) 16:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Looks like it could be another sock of Argentina based AndresHerutJaim.

AndresHerutJaim Sebinisra91 Jabotito48 Tutangamon 8HGasma Bach Aria Taurniul JosHall 93 Farkur Mediotic Taurui01 Pararrei Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed match. No sleepers. Elockid (Talk) 03:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Looks like another sock of Argentina based AndresHerutJaim. He also appears to be editing logged out.

AndresHerutJaim Sebinisra91 Jabotito48 Tutangamon 8HGasma Bach Aria Taurniul JosHall 93 Farkur Mediotic Taurui01 Pararrei Merlinsack Sean.hoyland - talk 11:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
31 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Looks like yet another sockpuppet of Argentina-based AndresHerutJaim ([52], [53], [54]). He also appears to be editing while he is logged out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence. Editor interaction reports showing overlaps with previous accounts (including null results for completeness). Please hard block the IP for a while because it appears to be static. AndresHerutJaim Sebinisra91 Jabotito48 Tutangamon 8HGasma Bach Aria Taurniul JosHall 93 Farkur Mediotic Taurui01 Pararrei Merlinsack WikiPoun Sean.hoyland - talk 16:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Just because I'm from Argentina doesn't mean I'm a sock--200.89.185.180 (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Both IPs, rangeblocked. Elockid (Talk) 22:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


02 September 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Another AndresHerutJaim IP. Editor interaction reports showing overlaps with previous accounts (including null results for completeness). The IP is also asking editors to edit on his behalf. This is a serious escalation in their misbehavior. Please hard block the IP for a while because it appears to be static. AndresHerutJaim Sebinisra91 Jabotito48 Tutangamon 8HGasma Bach Aria Taurniul JosHall 93 Farkur Mediotic Taurui01 Pararrei Merlinsack WikiPoun Sean.hoyland - talk 09:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
20 September 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Looks like it could be another sock of Argentina based AndresHerutJaim. The account has been active for a while but it has recently started edit warring/violating 1RR.

AndresHerutJaim Sebinisra91 Jabotito48 Tutangamon 8HGasma Bach Aria Taurniul JosHall 93 Farkur Mediotic Taurui01 Pararrei Merlinsack WikiPoun Sean.hoyland - talk 16:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


21 September 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


AndresHerutJaim is back, editing logged out from a Buenos Aires, Argentina, editing the same articles as the last sock Samo.head, even making the same edit here and here. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Added Garffunkel, a recently created account that went on directly to re-revert into Samo.head's version: [55][56]. Jafeluv (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--Garffunkel (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Garffunkel is a  Confirmed match. I've also blocked the following socks:

No comment on IP. Elockid (Talk) 04:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

09 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


AHJ has clearly stated that he intends to carry on socking.[57] His latest account is behaving particularly disruptively [58] hence the filing of this case.

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
10 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Two IPs from the same old location. Reverting currently five edits into sock masters preference. Shouting in es. [66] [67] [68] [69]. (Now edit warring [70]). Also active on a talk page right about my earlier edit reversal: [71]. DePiep (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
11 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


AHJ has stated that he intends to carry on socking.[72] His latest account is edit warring in breach of 1rr in multiple I/P related articles.[73] [74] [75] This is characteristic of his previous accounts (see e.g. [76], [77], [78]) and disruptive to the topic area.

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
16 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Same profile as past IP socks, Argentina based IP re-reverting edits made by the last sock blocked as an AJH account. Nableezy 14:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


26 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

SquidooSepul is editing the same article (1948 Arab–Israeli War) as multiple socks of the sock master. Same pro-Israeli POV. Frederico1234 (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rezibalas is canvassing two other users regarding the same article: [91] [92]. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Please note that Arab-Israeli War has been heavily edited by socks of the sock-master. Indeed, a large percentage of the total number of the edits to the article since the time of his block has been made by his countless socks. His last confirmed sock Sonntagsbraten was blocked just two weeks ago. One such edit is [93]. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

SquidooSepul has already been blocked as a AndresHerutJaim sock[94]

Editor interaction reports for Rezibalas showing overlaps with previous accounts (including a few null results for completeness). Please block, with or without a CU. They'll be back with another account very quickly and editors will be back here filing reports.

Pereliminary notice:, single edit so far CU rquested:

The IP has made only one edit so far [95], in I/P related page Template:Largest Israeli cities where earlier socks did the same rv: User:Garffunkel [96], User:201.250.21.216 [97], User:190.16.232.141 [98], User:200.114.132.36 [99], User:Bach Aria [100], User:8HGasma [101] and more, totaling to about 8 socks. (Some of the socks appeared om the talkpage.).
I think right now no action or CU is needed for this one in itself (it could be single edit), but further suspected edits could trigger a CU request here. -DePiep (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[103]
Oops, reported earier here above and already killed. -DePiep (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Check declined by a checkuser. 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.

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Geolocation same as earlier IP socks. Pages edited same as earlier interests. diff and edit warring, 1RR trespassing on I/P page:
Battles of the Sinai (1948): [104] [105] [106]), [107]
List of Palestinian suicide attacks [108] and [109]
Israeli_Air_Force [110], [111], [112], [113].
POV pushing, without RS: [114] DePiep (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Must say, a 31 hrs block for edit warring does not address the sock puppet issue. Especially since this is a compulsary sock with too much resources (time, IP numbers) on their hands. I prefer SPI check and so permanent blocking. I can note that the 190.xxx numbers aere volatile (temporal), but the 201.235.xxx numbers are used over a longer time. In short: a sock is a sock so block. -DePiep (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
06 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Restores the same edit as previous sock. Only edits 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the sock master's favorite page. New account where multiple user talk page reverts were performed as to circumvent article semi-protection, same method used by previous socks. Frederico1234 (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

diff: [115]
SpecialContribs [116] shows that the user cracks up edits, possibly to evade any "new user" filter (the diff is on a semi-protected page). -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is something AndresHerutJaim does in preparation for editing semi-protected articles per WP:SEMI "Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed." See Special:Contributions/SquidooSepul for example, where he did the same thing in preparation for editing the same semi-protected article 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
18 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Editor interaction reports for MelissaLond showing overlaps with previous accounts (including a few null results for completeness). I think a CU is probably not necessary.

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
20 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Same pattern as past socks, minor edits adding and removing a space to get autoconfirmed, then right back into edit-warring over the same passages (this, which the last sock had been reverting to maintain. nableezy - 17:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC) 17:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Illegible "Clerck" (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp below says: "This is ...". Please be more clear. This sock is taking me more time that you spend on disclarifying. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I am unable to decipher this message. Can you be explain what you mean? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot decipher? Well. 1. Your id is illegible. 2. You juggle with reason & how little evidence actually needs to be provided in order to get a checkuser (Then, if you are a CU clerk related (3. which you don't clarify btw), just don't get involved), 4. next time people complain it's too much effort to find evidence sure. Again: then just don't bother and do not even bother to read or write here. 5. After that you write down to business is self-defying. I repeat my point: we are spending lot of time to keep the socks out, and we do not need your smarty evasive nonjokes to help us. Clear now? -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You really arent helping. Deskana is a CU, not a clerk, and I took the message as saying that this is an example showing that people who complain about how hard it is to provide evidence for a CU dont have a case. Just say thanks and move on. And on that note, thanks Deskana. nableezy - 01:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean no cynicism involved? "Anyway, down to business" he wrote. FWIW, I clarified my statement as requested. And sure my first post Illegible ... still stands. -DePiep (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a joke. It was a comment that you only need two diffs to get a check (like nableezy provided), and that long walls of text (like a lot of people provide) are not necessary. Then I stated the results of the check that I ran. Your comments are somewhat baffling. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your post was confusing, as is your sign. So I stated. After these clarifications, it is clear enough and OK for me. EOT. -DePiep (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This is an absolutely perfect example of how little evidence actually needs to be provided in order to get a checkuser carried out. I will rememeber this case next time people complain it's too much effort to find evidence for a checkuser request. Anyway, down to business. The following accounts are  Confirmed to be related:

I found no sleepers at the initial check. I will perform a slightly more in depth check on the off-chance I find some, but it is unlikely. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Same pattern as the past socks, registers an account, makes a bunch of minor edits to get autoconfirmed (8 edits to his user page), and back making the same edit as past socks ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ofira_Air_Battle&diff=528785404&oldid=528740669 IP sock, another IP sock, confirmed registered user sock, "new user" nableezy - 21:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 21:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Good early catch. Pattern seen by the eye. -DePiep (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The U+Cosimo+U account was blocked by Elockid shortly after this report was filed. Closing case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

01 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


All 4 articles edited by this latest sock were edited by previous socks. See editor interaction reports for 3 example accounts [117][118][119]. Checkuser is probably not required. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Likely, looking at the technical data as well as the behavior. T. Canens (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

03 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Edits similar to sockpuppet MelissaLond. Examples: 1, 2; 1, 2. (Editor Interaction Analyzer) Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody here?--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yet another apparent sock: User:BuzzFead. [here] User:BuzzFead restores edit made by previous sock User:Hawk99MM here. While a check user might not be required for this case, it would reveal other sleeper accounts (notice how the account was created right after page protection was lifted (see article history here)). --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
09 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Same edits as past accounts, eg LS the last blocked sock. Doesnt even seem to be trying to hide the relationship. nableezy - 02:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 02:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Likely, bordering  Confirmed. No obvious sleepers. T. Canens (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked. Elockid (Talk) 03:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

09 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

(Alan J Harper): Restoring the same edit[120] as last sock on Operation Pillar of Defense . Obvious sock is obvious Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Wolfgang Fontaine): Former sockpuppet of HerutJuram (BuzzFead) was blocked on the 6th and Wolfgang Fontaines arrives on the 7th on the article with the same arguments. (By the way could a sysop semi-protect the article so that we can have at least 4 days of rest between each intrusion... Thank you by advance.) Pluto2012 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another proof : this edit repeats this edit by a CU blocked AndresHerutJaim sock. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

wrt requested protection: 1948 Arab–Israeli War was semi-protected on Jan 6 [121], but on Jan 7 this new user Wolfgang Fontaine edited [122]. Something I don't understand? -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding protection, see this question at ANI for interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harper sock now blocked by Elockid[123] Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
10 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Same exact edit as a past sock as the accounts second edit (after creating a user page) [124], past sock [125] nableezy - 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


11 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Last sock blocked, new one created. Same edits as past socks, eg New and Old, New and Old, and every other edit the user has made. nableezy - 17:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 17:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just in case the above gets buried by the newer reports, Im not sure if Wolfgang Fontaine (talk · contribs) was ever checked, but likewise looks like an obvious sock. nableezy - 20:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfgang Fontaine was blocked by Elockid. nableezy - 20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Remaining accounts blocked. Protected/reprotected some pages. Elockid (Talk) 20:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

25 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Argentina based AndresHerutJaim has been openly editing for the past week using the static Argentina based IP 190.16.238.155. They are not getting the message. Same set of articles as previous socks, History of Israel[126], Portal:Israel/Did you know[127] etc. Please block. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Sort of funny too. -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
31 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Both the IP and account no longer appear to be active, but this report is of interest because it may demonstrate that PC2 is ineffective. Special:Contributions/190.210.114.109 is an obvious Argentina based sock of AndresHerutJaim editing the History of Israel, an article edited by many previous socks, including the IP 190.16.238.155 that resulted in a range block in the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive#25_January_2013.

Although the Methwoldknowing account was created on 2013-01-04, its first edit was at 2013-01-28T16:12:06, just a couple of minutes after 190.210.114.109's last edit at 2013-01-28T16:10:41. The account edited several articles also edited by AndresHerutJaim and socks such as Operations conducted by the Mossad, Israel Defense Forces (edited by many socks included the last IP that resulted in the range block) but most importantly, one of AndresHerutJaim's favorite articles 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Methwoldknowing's edits appear to show the usual pattern of making enough edits to get autoconfirmed. The difference in this case is that PC2 was applied to that article following a report at ANI due to the extensive sockpuppetry. Detailed reports that describe the extent of sockpuppetry are available at User_talk:EdJohnston#data (see the 1948 Arab–Israeli War - article results (PDF) + 1948 Arab–Israeli War - talk page results (PDF) links) for interest. Methwoldknowing's last edit was to PC2 protected 1948 Arab–Israeli War and it was accepted by reviewer Guerrilla of the Renmin (who is probably completely unaware of why the very unusual step of applying PC2 protection to that article was taken).

It would be useful to confirm whether Methwoldknowing is an AndresHerutJaim sock. That would demonstrate that PC2 provided no protection from persistent sockpuppetry for an WP:ARBPIA topic area article in this case. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
19 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Editor interaction reports for just some of the previous sockpuppets [128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144] Sean.hoyland - talk 05:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged as a suspected sock. Elockid (Talk) 15:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

27 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


I've asked for a checkuser but I'm not sure it's necessary. The Atila el Huno account was created on 2013-04-21 at 16:01:56. It appears to have been created by Buenos Aires based AndresHerutJaim so that it could be used to edit war with Buenos Aires based IPs (201.235.34.48 & 200.68.112.141) also operated by AndresHerutJaim, presumably in an attempt to make it look like a legitimate account and not a "childish sockpuppet" (and to get autoconfirmed). The objective appears to have been for the Atila el Huno account to repeat edits made by previous IP socks that attempted but failed to remove an image from the semi-protected Gaza War article.

Here is a time sorted list of the fake edit warring between AndresHerutJaim's Atila el Huno sock and his 201.235.34.48 & 200.68.112.141 IP socks.

Sean.hoyland - talk 16:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rko97 looks like another AndresHerutJaim sock too. They made a series of pointless edits to articles to get autoconfirmed as previous socks have done, and they are editing the Gaza flotilla raid article, an article that has been edited by previous socks User:Nok Sane, User:Jesse 8W, User:Sonntagsbraten, in addition to the AndresHerutJaim account itself. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and Beravildi, again usual MO, pointless edits to User:Beravildi/sandbox to get autoconfirmed, now editing History of Israel, the article that has been edited by probably the most registered and IP socks of AndresHerutJaim. Consequently it has been protected numerous times. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
02 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Same or similar edits as past IP socks, such as this compared to this, or this compared to this nableezy - 14:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 14:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
03 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


This edit[148] is a repeat of edits by previous socks[149][150]. Keira1992 created the Israel–Syria barrier article, only 3 editors have edited the article, one being an IP sock of AndresHerutJaim (Special:Contributions/157.92.4.71) at Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires. I could go on to document the many article overlaps with previous socks using Editor Interaction Analyzer but I'll leave it at that for now. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast turnaround. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
07 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


First edits are to recreate an article created by the last sock and CSD'd as being created by a banned user in violation of the ban. Article is Israeli–Syrian barrier nableezy - 18:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) 18:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the article that was CSD'd after Keira1992 (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sock was Israel–Syria barrier. Israeli–Syrian barrier is a recreation of that. nableezy - 04:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
02 June 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


The account looks like it could be another sock. See editor interaction reports showing many overlaps with previous socks, including on obscure articles with few edits, despite the new account having only made 75 edits at the time of this report.

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
21 June 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Only edit is to recreate an article created, then re-created, by blocked socks of AndresHerutJaim. The previously deleted articles are Israel–Syria barrier and Israeli–Syrian barrier nableezy - 19:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC) 19:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
01 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Same pattern as past socks, changing wikilinks to get autoconfirmed ([151], [152]) and other minor edits ([153], [154]). Active in low-traffic articles common with past AJH socks such as Battle of Nablus (past socks: [155], [156], [157], [158], and more). nableezy - 13:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC) 13:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, similar, and Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) thought the same thing, but this account feels more like AHJ to me. Could be IG though. nableezy - 14:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is hard to sort the socks without a CU, but there is a socky feel going on here, regardless. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 18:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging cases per [162][edit]

27 June 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Behavioral evidence, happy to email any CU. IranitGreenberg was banned from the I/P conflict topic area, a topic Michael Zeev has chosen to focus his or her attention on. Nableezy 06:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But some evidence I dont mind sharing here, it seems obvious to me that this isnt a new user. The very first edit made was adding a user box and blue-linking his user page. The next four edits were to his user page, followed by a well-formatted reference being added in his 6th total edit, first outside of userspace. His 11th total edit references a somewhat obscure guideline, and even wikilinks it in the edit summary. The evidence that I think establishes that this account is related to IranitGreenberg Id rather email as Im guessing it will be useful in the future. nableezy - 06:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that IranitGreenberg was not into prettying her user page, so that doesn't link the two accounts, quite the opposite. If using wiki terminology and well formatted cites is an indication of being a sockpuppet, I must refer you to Nableezy's first 10 edits where he uses "vandalism" in his first ever edit summary, and is in his sandbox making well formatted cites within the 10th. But I think we all know these things do not make a sock. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say that was the connection, did I? And you see me saying "removed" instead of "reverted". And that was me actually trying to copy from a working reference to make a different one, if you want to be honest about it. And looking back, seems I struggled a bit with even doing that as you can see from the preceding and succeeding edits. I said that the above comment was just an attempt to establish that this was not a new account. There is further evidence that I feel establishes that this account is operated by the person who operated the IranitGreenberg account. And I am more than willing to provide that evidence to a competent and capable party. nableezy - 07:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamH, your email isn't enabled. I should have gone to sleep hours ago, so if you could enable it and Ill send the evidence in the morning. nableezy - 08:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. WilliamH (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sent. nableezy - 10:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Jonymeller edited once in May. Michael Zeev was created in June. How is one a sock of the other if there's no concurrent editing or editing in violation of a ban? Seems more like an abandoned account, no? No wonder Nableezy gets whoever he wants banned if this is the level of "investigations" here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
04 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


The account was created on June 2, the same day their User:Sheilub sock account was blocked. Their first 3 edits indicate they are unlikely to be a new user.

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
06 August 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Returning the same edit to Rachel Corrie as past blocked socks (Cønffucius, compared to Elirhann Oraz89). Made then blanked a user page within the first five edits to blue link user name, same as several past socks. nableezy - 14:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 14:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
28 August 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Like many previous AndresHerutJaim socks, Minkerj made 10 useless edits so that they could edit a semi-protected article, History of Israel in this case, one of AndresHerutJaim most common targets. The edit[163] reinstated the edit of recently blocked sock Crandmeipait.[164] I would normally just report this to checkuser Elockid here to cut down on red tape but they appear to be away at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

The evidence cited is so minimal as to be non-existant and does not justify blocking the account. No mention of the blocking was made on the talk page of History of Israel.

Why should this be announced on an article talk page? --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it to people who know what they are doing. If you are planning to interfere with efforts to prevent AndresHerutJaim's block evasion let me know. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
30 August 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Argentina based AndresHerutJaim is edit warring at several articles e.g. Hassan Rouhani (which was fully protected as a result but it expired) and at Nazi salute. At the second article they are also using Telefonica del Peru IPs in support of the registered sock as they have done many times before. At Benjamin Netanyahu, The Ningeihher reimplemented the edit of one of their previous socks. Please block the account and range-block the associated IP. Please also range-block the Telefonica del Peru Special:Contributions/190.234.13.155 IP, their current IP sock. I can provide evidence to show overlaps between 190.234.13.155 and previous socks but it is really a waste of time. Any Argentina based IP or Telefonica del Peru IP currently editing in the Arab/Iranian-Israel conflict area will be an AndresHerutJaim sock. Any Telefonica de Espana IP editing in the Arab/Iranian-Israel conflict area will be either an AndresHerutJaim sock or a meatpuppet. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
11 September 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Sorry I don't have much time to explain how these are all the same user, prolific sock puppeter AndresHerutJaim, other than that these IPs and accounts like to target myself and Sean Hoyland, the majority of their edits are to make Israel look better, they will make a revert with one account, then when that revert is undone by another user, they use another new account/IP to make that revert again. AndresHerutJaim seems to have access to IPs in Argentina, Peru, Israel, and Spain. I will post a better report later when I have the time. Sepsis II (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a new checkuser run again for the newest onslaught of Andres/NoCal socks such as

Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not whoever you claim me to be, please stop making things up about me beacause of some insane vendetta you have. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csi.southpark (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I had already spotted the first of these, which is a very clear, and loudly quacking, sock of this prolific puppeteer. Since this disruptive editor has created so many socks (more than 150 at last count), and since some of these socks have been created long ago and apparently held in readiness until "needed", there is a need for a checkuser to identify and block other sleeper accounts. There is probably also a case for range blocks, and for filter edits to prevent this continued vandalism, which is damaging to Wikipedia and which wastes the time of many good editors. RolandR (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a petty and vindictive edit in GoGoTob2's history that is indicative of a (long running) personal vendetta against an editor. AndresHerutJaim wouldn't bother with such trivial things. It's more characteristic of other long term sockpuppeteers, such as Isarig/Nocal100. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are probably just two of many more accounts NoCal is currently using for sockpuppetry. Perhaps more can be found in the history of the Organ transplantation in Israel article, which seems to be the locus of a typical "2 wrongs make a right" ARBPIA war against other probable socks, maybe Guinsberg or Dalai lama ding dong socks, no idea. There appear to be several non-AndresHerutJaim socks active at the moment on both sides of the conflict in the topic area. If NoCal's claim[165][166] that Eptified=Sepsis II is true, Sepsis II needs to sort it out. Socks attract socks. The interaction report here (excluding the abandoned account) suggests that the accounts aren't both currently being used to edit in ARBPIA, but WP:SOCK#NOTIFY is policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AHJ in eswiki

To get more grip on the patterns, I looked at AHJ's behaviour cross-wiki. This Argentinian was active and blocked long time ago (2007) on eswiki. No other wikis in view so far.

Sockpuppets used on eswiki (maybe more):
es:user:Desde-sefarad
es:user:Elrejunteil
es:user:Herutx
es:user:El comandante22
es:user:Sentir-luchar-vencer-podemos
es:user:Rafvrab
es:user:Buenaprensa2
es:user:Locoleque
es:user:Hothotu
es:user:Es-israel
es:user:Bajurtov
es:user:Infotzion
es:user:Julian2233
All these were blocked on 7/8 Oct 2007.
190.17.232.48 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): [170]; IP edited in both wikis. IP blocked on enwiki for sock.
Other IP socks in eswiki I could not search for easily.
AndrésHerutJaim (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
spelled AndresHerutJaim (as used on enwiki)
Research means

We could use templates to point to es:user: with all the usefull links, and we need a cross-wiki contribs link (global account edits). If anyone knows such template, please add them to my code above.

Conclusions

So far:

  1. eswiki blocked AndrésHerutJaim ("é"), active in I/P pages only, for SOCK in October 2007 together with a dozen other socks.
  2. AndresHerutJaim is a global account, created 13 April 2009. Used on enwiki (first: 15 Apr 2009) and eswiki (first 21 Jun 2010; so slept 14 months),
  3. eswiki blocked AndresHerutJaim ("e") for being a SOCK of AndrésHerutJaim on 21 Jun 2010.
  4. enwiki blocked AndresHerutJaim ("e") for being a SOCKPUPPET on 24 April 2011.

-DePiep (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Note: After conversing with another CU, I have blocked both Sisoo and GoGoTob as socks of NoCal100 (talk · contribs). Elockid (Talk) 18:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid, thanks for looking into this further. I hope that someone familiar with SPI procedures will decide whether this result should be moved into WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 to aid in diagnosing any further occurrences. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Andres is a prolific sockpuppeter, his puppets always target the IP articles, reverting the edits of a certain group of editors, and he often uses sleeper account such as this one which just woke up. There is little evidence which can be used to show this is Andres other than how he edits as his accounts don't stay around long enough to overlap articles. He runs multiple socks at a time, each making a spasm of edits, then going back to sleep. Elockid seems to be most familiar with Andres accounts. Sepsis II (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Sepsis II (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
09 April 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Andres is a prolific sockpuppeter known to use IPs (meatpuppets) coming from Argentina, Spain, Peru, and Israel. AmirSurfLera edits many of the same pages as the blocked sock IranitGreenberg account, all three accounts also edited their own user pages the day of creation to turn them blue. Andres also enjoys disturbing my editing; each of these socks has reverted my work. There is a very high chance of other active accounts belonging to Andres as well as created accounts with no edits yet. Sepsis II (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Note: I already replied to another user (see my talk page) regarding AmirSurfLera). I already checked Avusi nabusi last investigation. no No comment on the IPs. The meatpuppetry explained by the filer will need to be discussed somewhere else, perhaps at ANI. Elockid (Talk) 03:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

29 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

This account was created on 2 August, Wlglunight93 was created on 24 August. The account edited prolifically until 26 August. Wlglunight93 edited from 10 September. On 10 October, Wlglunight93 was blocked for a week; Veritnight edited prolifically on 12-13 October. Wlglunight93 was blocked for a month on 19 October; this account returned to edit on 20 October, and has edited prolifically since.

Both accounts share the same pattern of rapid edits, including frequent reversions, on Israel/Palestine articles. They have both edited some of the same articles, including Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip, Yom Kippur War, 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, Israeli new shekel, Aliyah, Battle of Karameh and others. Although neither account seems to have directly repeated an edit of the other, the coincidence of editing dates, similarity of account names, style and choice of material indicates clearly that these are both operated by the same person, who is thus evading a block. A CU for other sleepers may also be advisable. RolandR (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
02 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Mevarus started in April 2014, made 18 drip-drip edits in one page until October 20. Then on 1 November 2014, some 26 edits in 6 hours. All in Israel/Palestine pages. Edits in same page as the other socks (3rd sock is User:Veritnight), for example:

Less active pages:

Time: Veritnight and Wlglunight93 were blocked October 29; before they filled each others block time (see their sockpuppet report). Mevarus became active on November 1, a few days after their block. Shared editing pattern: Mevarus adds a perfect reference in their very first edit [171] (14 April 2014). The sockmaster's fourth edit: a complete ref [172]. Third sock Veritnight: second edit, a full reference: [173] More similarities: serious and sometimes complete es, edits mostly in politics/PR; strengthening judgements (re terrorism and WP:label [174]) DePiep (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Comment by Obsidi

So I see the Mevarus account was created in April, and was editing (maybe not all that actively). He was focused on the Israel/Palestine area of editing, even back then. Given Mevarus and this previous account were both active in Israel/Palestine pages, the fact that they edited the same articles several times doesn't seem to convince me very much that they are the same person (I am sure you probably edited the same articles as them as well!). The best evidence you have is Mevarus "takes over" Wlglunight93's prior edit. So lets look through that incident in particular. There was an edit war going on, lets lay out all the edits in this edit war:

On September 27:
Wlglunight93 adds

On October 29 through November 2nd:
Dr. R.R. Pickles reverts with "undoing revert"
79.180.160.193 restores with "restoring sourced material"
Scalhotrod reverts with "needs better sourcing"
Mevarus restores with "Attribution: The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Defense Forces channel are appropriate sources to say "Israel/IDF maintain...")"
Scalhotrod reverts with "But YouTube video is not, please source reliably."
Mevarus restores with "Ok. May I remind you of WP:PRESERVE? Removing Youtube links. Content supported by other sources (adding one), attribution is already present.)"
DePiep reverts with "rv to ante situation (as left by Dr. R.R. Pickles the 29th). You both are over 1RR, so you both should have been on the talkpage by now"
TheTimesAreAChanging restores with "(Material was there long before the 29th. Youtube is a useless argument for blanket deletion, and not even correct: A Facebook post from a RS expert is RS, likewise IDF or Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Youtube channel is RS with attribution.)"

From what I see TheTimesAreAChanging (clearly not a sock), seems to be making a good point, maybe there are good reasons to keep that content. So while it is probably the most suspicious edit combination, I am not quite willing to say it proves Mevarus is a sock. If you want to push for a check-user to make sure, that would be fine, but so far it appears to have not asked for that, and based on behavior alone I don't think there is enough evidence here. --Obsidi (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You first threw out other points mentioned. That's a bit, eh, selective. They you suggest something (but what?): "I am sure you probably edited the same articles as them as well!." How is that an argument? Why did you not check that yourself? -DePiep (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mevarius is an obvious sock. I don't know of who because there are too many such "contributors" in the area of the I-P conflict. Regarding behaviour, if you have a look at his edit son Nov 5, you can see that Mevarius canevasses a move discussion in "suggesting" all the contributors of wikipedia who are more sensitive to the Israeli point of view (and only them) to come and !vote. How would he know all of them if he was not in wikipedia for long, so if he was not a sock. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mevarus is clearly a sock of Wlglunight. The style of rapid-fire editing, the choice of articles (many of the same articles, within the I/P topic area), and the dates and times of day when they edit make this apparent. I request a CU, to confirm the patently obvious. RolandR (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
16 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

New account edit-warring in the same topic area, and on many of the same articles, as this puppeteer and puppets.

The account was created on 13 October, but did not edit until 19.58 on 1 November, then edited until 20.32. Confirmed sock Mevarus stopped editing at 19.47, and resumed at 21.17. Mevaruss edited until 23.00, Keramiton edited from 23.06 until 23.25, and Mevarus resumed at 23.51. Mevarus wsas blocked on 6 Novemner; apart from one edit on 5 November, Keramiton resumed editing on 8 November, when this account continued the same pattern editing and edit-warring.

Identical edits include: Persian Jews [176]9(Veritnight), [177](Keramiton); Jewish population by country [178](Veritnight), [179](Keramiton).

Other common articles include Iran-Israel proxy conflict, Black September Organization, 2006 Lebanon War, Gaza flotilla raid, Zionism, Reprisal operations, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, Bar Kokhba revolt, Benjamin Netanyahu, 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, Blockade of the Gaza Strip, Six-Day War and many more.

The identical edits, choice of articles, style and POV, and hours when this editor works make it clear that this is another block-evading puppet. RolandR (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
23 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Like the other socks of this puppeteer, edited in the spaces when one puppet or another was not editing; began editing in earnest after other puppets blocked.

Same pattern of editing, and range of articles. Identical edits, eg on 2006 Lebanon War [181] Simon Wtekni, [182] Keramiton; on Benjamin Netanyahu [183] Simon Wtekni, [184] Keramiton; on Israel [185] Simon Wtekni, [186] Keramiton.

Many other common articles, including 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict ‎, Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, 2014 Alon Shvut stabbing attack, Yom Kippur War and others.

Once again, the style and time of editing and the choice of articles indicate that this would seem to be another sock from the same drawer. CU is requested to identify any spers socks; it is also likely that the puppeteer has been editing with a number of IPs. RolandR (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: Just as with User:Keramiton, the suspected puppet Simon is compared to, the evidence is obvious, certainly that this account and the Keramiton account are the same person. I'm neither endorsing nor declining the CU. On Keramiton, the CU request was declined by the CU himself. At the same time, given the seesaw manner in which these accounts are created, it is possible that there is a sleeper (IPs will generally not be identified). So, I'll leave it up to the discretion of the CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

03 January 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Identical edit to previously banned sock: [187], cf this edit by blocked sock. Similar pattern of edits to blocked socks, other shared articles: Sabra and Shatila massacre, 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, Hamas Covenant. To me, this quacks like a duck, but CU may be necessary both to confirm this and to locate any further accounts.

Similar pattern of POV reversions. RolandR (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Blocked and tagged. Yep, that's him. Not sure a check would reveal anything of use; last I saw of Wlglunight (after somebody alerted me off-wiki to some suspicious IP edits) he was using proxies bouncing all over the place, mainly South America (especially Peru, Paraguay, and Argentina if memory serves) and Spain. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29 January 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

User:TmG12 created his account today after User:Ashurbanippal was blocked and their edit patterns are very similar. Hope someone could take a look at this. Shmayo (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least his first edit was today. Shmayo (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Ashubanippal emailed me (politely and, I must say, credibly) saying he was dutifully serving his initial block duration, would absolutely not have socked, that TmG12 seems to be another POV editor who may have readded Ashu's edit but that it isn't him. He's asking for additional investigation, and the two diffs I provided above are sufficient, IMO, for a CU check (although I originally thought it unnecessary). Self-endorsed for a check. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would tend to favor putting Ashu back on the original block duration, but TmG12 could be either a sock/troll or just another POV-pusher; these two possibilities don't justify the same sanctions (indef.-vs.-tempblock). Hopefully Callanecc might provide more insight. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TmG12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is technically Red X Unrelated to Wlglunight93 and Ashurbanippal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later tonight I will move this case under Wlglunight93, indef+tag Ashu as a sock, and look into whether TmG12 should be unblocked. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've indef-blocked and tagged Ashu, but I'll leave the rest to Salvidrim! Huon (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
19 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" was create in January 2011 but preformed almost no edits until socks Ashurbanippal and Wlglunight93 were blocked, then suddenly became extremely active and reverts the same information as the blocked socks. see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_David_Hotel_bombing&diff=647821030&oldid=647755738 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_the_Palestinian_territories&diff=prev&oldid=647312165 Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
12 March 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


< new account has done no edits except to revert to Ashurbanippal edits --> Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2015 (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]
10 July 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I do not have much experience in SPIs, so excuse any errors. Simon Wtekni, a sock of Wlglunight93, was blocked on 24 November 2014. Averysoda was created on 25 November, but was dormant for a while. It picked up on activity in early May, showing some of the patterns of Wlglunight93, a lot of rapid fire edits in a short time, similar edit summaries and so on. The user shares a lot of pages in common with Simon Wtekni and Ashurbanippal, another of Wlglunight93's socks. They are apparent at a glance, but I can list the pages if needed. Some diffs are common:

There are probably more diffs in common if I try to hunt them down. In addition, there is some other behavioural evidence which I can email on request. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:26, 10 July 2015 (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 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Averysoda, one of Wlglunight93's socks, was blocked recently. This is a new account, registered a few days ago, which is already making rapid fire edits to a large number of different articles in the WP:ARBPIA and closely related areas. The pattern of edits and the edit summaries suggest to me Wlglunight93 is the master. In any case, they really seem to be a sock of someone. WP:DUCK. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: A simple glance at ISavedPvtRyan's history suggests to me that they are not a new user. The account is only a few days old, so there aren't any identical diffs. However the edit summaries are very similar, as is the range of articles they edit (a very wide range for a newish user). Some close diffs are given below:

Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Baatarsaikan, another Wlglunight93-sock, was insisting on "equalling" the Jordanian period (=1948-1967) on the West Bank, with The Israeli era(=post 1967), by calling them the same; here Baatarsaikan on Sur Baher, and here ISavedPvtRyan on nearby Um Tuba --Huldra (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2015 (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]

  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) 14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21 August 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

Prefix ip included in previous sock-puppet investigations, behavior edits similar to blocked users 495656778774 (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2015 (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 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

AndresHerutJaim is known to use IP from Cablevision, Argentina. Zeremony made the same edit as the Cablevision, Argentina- IP on Palestine Liberation Organization, see IP edit and Zeremony edit Huldra (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kingsindian[edit]

The IPs are clearly AndresHerutJaim for reasons Huldra gave already. The non-IP user sure looks like him. Regarding non-stale sockpuppets, I have reason to believe that LoveFerguson and/or EscEscEsc might be sockpuppets of Andres instead of NoCal100. They might have been misclassified, people have confused them before, so it might be worth checking against them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: I have been asked to provide diffs for my suspicion about LoveFerguson being misclassified, and being really a sock of Andres instead of NoCal. As far as I can tell, LoveFerguson is a sock of either AndresHerutJaim, NoCal100, or Wlglunight93. It can be hard to tell them apart. All of them are prolific sockmasters. It is not too important who the master is, can't one just CU LoveFerguson against the accounts here? They looks very similar based on edit summaries and behaviour.
LoveFerguson was edit-warring to remove stuff (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_46/86&diff=prev&oldid=674456045) on an article which Averysoda was edit-warring before he got banned. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_46/86&diff=667271192&oldid=667174694) - with the same editor - Qualitatis - the same editor at the Palestine Liberation Organization the others are edit-warring with.
LoveFerguson is edit-warring over text which a sock of Aversysoda added (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&diff=665018864&oldid=664984363)
For LoveFerguson, here is he reverting Zero (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=prev&oldid=675368646). After I reverted him with the edit summary "There is a discussion on the talk page for this, please participate there, instead of reverting." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=prev&oldid=676395605), he uses the same edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_War_(2008%E2%80%9309)&diff=prev&oldid=676490427), baiting Nishidani. Also shows up on another page in response to my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susya&diff=prev&oldid=676554487) with (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susya&diff=prev&oldid=676642608) Susya, to "support" another editor, insisting on "balance" by removing a quote from a Palestinian.
Here is another case LoveFerguson edit-warring (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&diff=672521251&oldid=671944046) to keep stuff which Averysoda was doing the same (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&diff=664966710&oldid=664965088) Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:09, 7 September 2015 (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]

  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) 21:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed To compare Zeremony, LoveFerguson and EscEscEsc with each other. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

I believe AttilaTotalWar is a sock of the Munro, Argentina-based serial Sockpuppet master, aka AndresHerutJaim. I believe it is the colleague of Zeremony. Typically, he never adds anything substantial. Only deletes, reverts, or adds something biased and/or inciting.[190]

Zeremony started on 25 August repeating this edit from Munro IP. Last edit on 6 September at Palestine Liberation Organization where he started on 30 August after page protection.
AttilaTotalWar started on 31 August, only being very disruptive and obstructive. Diffs:
[191] [192]. Stop accusing
[193] [194] [195]. Refer to talk page without discussing
[196] [197]. weasel Qualitatis (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2015 (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]

25 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


[198]
The next suckpuppet of this sick mind. Qualitatis (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2015 (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]

Apology. Copy fault. User:LoveFerguson (see above) --Qualitatis (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, all accounts are already blocked and I'm closing this. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
22 November 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Greyshark09 made the comment that User:AttacksinSyria may be a sockpuppet of User:Wlglunight93 here. Nishidani and Dan Murphy have had suspicions about User:7uperWkipedan being a sockpuppet here and here. As well as User:Jeppiz at ANI here, affirmed by Nishidani here and Kingsindian here.

On the page Israeli Air Force, AttacksinSyria made an edit here, User:Delores Moghadam had also edited on the same page to here. They have both also edited on History of the Israeli Air Force here and here.

On the page Alan Dershowitz, Delores Moghadam made a revert here, which was tag reverted the following day by 7uperWkipedan here.

On the page Mandatory Palestine, 7uperWkipedan made the reverts here and here, which was tag reverted the following day by Delores Moghadam here. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2015 (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]

information Note: Delores Moghadam is AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs) which I've blocked. Elockid Message me 16:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the previous confirmed socks, this case needs to be merged to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. Elockid Message me 16:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vanjagenije (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More