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

• Kacper IV (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Repeated rollback-like undoing of good-faith edits such as Special:Diff/928040010 shortly after the suspected, previously blocked, sockpuppeteer went inactive.

Courtesy ping: MJL, Alexf, Frood, Johnbod and Yamla for further investigation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional diffs that should probably not have been undone without explanation:

• Special:Diff/928039540
• Special:Diff/928039484
• Special:Diff/928039506
• Special:Diff/928039541
• Special:Diff/928039550
• Special:Diff/928039671
• Special:Diff/928039661

If both users are the same person, I'd indefinitely block the account to prevent further disruption. I need to know if Kacper IV is the same person who I had warned and discussed with detailedly, who was blocked for the same behavior and who failed to show understanding even in their unblock request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I was trying to revert vandalism. In Talk:Bourbonnais, Illinois the IP blanked the talk page. Kacper IV (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The above comment is additional evidence for the disruptive lack of understanding what vandalism is. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not say that blanking the talk page was vandalism. I did think it should have been undone. I accept that some of the early edits were sub-optimal, I was too hasty. Look at my latest reverts - I am reverting vandalism, See:

  1. [1] - Martha Washington (died 1802) did not like the Baltimore Ravens.
  2. [2] - Algerians in France are not mostly Salafi.
  3. [3] - "hey there cutie ;)"
  4. [4] - Mao's mom instead of Mao

  I am more careful now. Kacper IV (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't seem so. Special:Diff/928050328 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I reverted: [5], which was clear vandalism. You are saying I should have reverted a prior edit [6] as well. I accept that, but my revert was not in error. Kacper IV (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Kacper IV, I acknowledge that this discussion is getting beyond the investigation itself. My point is that even while taking extra care to prove the usefulness of your reverts, your latest revert fails to show such care again. Please do not revert any user's edits at least until this investigation is closed. You have tried to prove me wrong, but have instead proven me correct and disrupted the encyclopedia in the process. This needs to stop now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not LoganTheWatermelon or anyone else. I am Kacper. I did not know that when I revert clear vandalism I am responsible for reverting prior vandalism by the same IP. I will stop patrolling "Recent Changes", at the very least while this is open. Kacper IV (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that LoganTheWatermelon was blocked on 2019-11-24 for 31 hours. That block has since expired. By my calculation, this would not be an instance of WP:EVADE, as Kacper IV didn't start editing until after the block expired. And there's no overlap in editing. However, it would appear to be an attempt to evade scrutiny, doing exactly the same abusive behaviour as the previous account while hiding the fact they've been warned repeatedly and blocked for this action. --Yamla (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside chance that this is someone (User:A Nobody would be my guess) attempting a false flag operation, trying to make it seem as though User:Piotrus has been incompetently socking. Their first few dozen edits were on AfDs and definitely an imitation of Piotrus's style- mostly on AfDs Piotrus has been involved in or started- and administrators will be able to see that Kacper hamfistedly redirected his user page to Piotrus's and claimed the same birth year and approximate place of origin. Reyk _YO! 12:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Has WP:AGF gone out of the window? I am not Piotrus. I am not A Nobody. I am not LoganTheWatermelon. I registered this account to remove fictional fancruft and undo bad edits. If I was in error in one of my reverts, I apologize. Kacper IV (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing per the above. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• RheieWater2005 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hellickhook (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

"Hellickhook" was recently indeffed on both enwiki and Commons for being a vandalism-only account. After the user requested unblock, "RheieWater2005" - also a fairly new account - had a bizarre and unnecessary argument with the blocked user on their talk page: [7] [8] Grammar, temperament, and knowledge of how to use Wikipedia seem suspiciously similar. Cryptic Canadian 02:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Half an hour after this SPI went up, Rheie requested protection of Hellick's talk page...which is already protected. It's also worth nothing that Rheie says on eswiki that they are a WP:VALIDALT of Rheawate2006 which itself only started editing less than 3 weeks ago. Cryptic Canadian 03:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am Not related to the user I have been claimed to be sockpuppeting.🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above assessment. Was not surprised to see a SPI hand been started. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 02:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we closed this sock puppet investigation because I have done nothing even related to sockpuppeting to that use.🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, The RheieWater2005 account is only there because I forgot the password to my Rheawate2006 account so I had to create a new Account.🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not Hellickhook, so why does this page even need to exist?🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked RheieWater2005 as a sock of LoganTheWatermelon based on behavioral evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Case moved from RheieWater2005 to LoganTheWatermelon — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DISNEYCARTOON2006 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2600:1004:b048:43e7:88aa:d892:394a:bee (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1004:b01e:280b:dd23:6623:e67b:b523 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1004:b0a2:b56e:f5db:bf82:ca7a:599c (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1004:B01E:280B:9948:A0D9:F8DF:A54B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1004:B05E:87D5:D1B4:48BB:607D:F27A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.194.4.127 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

WP:DUCK ban evasion. Same poor grasp of English. Same poor grasp of recent changes patrolling: [9] [10]. Same poor grasp of Wikipedia in general. Same obsession with the Canimals article. Streisand effect. Same /32 IP range that tried to "retire" the master for a clean start. —{ CrypticCanadian } 23:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a new IP as well as the self-declared sock IP that I forgot to list. —{ CrypticCanadian } 18:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Added another obvious sock which harassed Ponyo, Yamla, and other Wikimedia projects. This user now has a credible history of vandalizing other projects so it might be wise to explore some kind of global option. —{ CrypticCanadian } 23:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Added an IPv4 address with identical WHOIS information, which has been blocked globally for cross-wiki vandalism (probably related to the above), and which had made Wikipedia contributions that were behaviorally indistinguishable from their other questionably competent edits. —{ CrypticCanadian } 03:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Yup, definitely some ban evasion going on here. The IP range including all listed addresses is Special:Contributions/2600:1004:b000::/40. I've requested a checkuser because a rangeblock may be warranted, but the /40 seems to have collateral, and CU data could help narrow the range. (I am aware that CUs will not tie accounts to IPs.) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have improved from those days, I do not want to be accused of sockpuppeting, I have new intentions to improve the canimals article, I now cite my edits, I really want to improve my grammar, to be fair,my edits to the canimals article are 100% fine. I am now appealing my block to prevent something like this again.2600:1004:B05E:87D5:D1B4:48BB:607D:F27A (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: please ban firebaleboy as a sock, I am not a sock as I am a IP.2600:1004:B05E:87D5:D1B4:48BB:607D:F27A (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I have improved from those days" You seem to be saying that you are indeed the same person as LoganTheWatermelon but shouldn't be blocked because you aren't using an account. Is that what you are trying to say? --Yamla (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to have FireBaleBoy Banned for being a sock of LTW.2600:1004:B05E:87D5:D1B4:48BB:607D:F27A (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been an answer to a question, but it wasn't an answer to the question I asked you. Q1: Are you the same person as LoganTheWatermelon? Q2: Are you claiming you should be allowed to edit (despite that account being blocked) because you aren't using an account? --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them: Yes.2600:1004:B05E:87D5:D1B4:48BB:607D:F27A (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Until LoganTheWatermelon is unblocked, you are not permitted to edit here. See WP:EVADE. You cannot edit here with an account. You cannot edit here via an IP address. You cannot edit Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that LoganTheWatermelon is banned, not just blocked. --Yamla (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason why I do not want to be banned is because I am appealing my block.2600:1004:B05E:87D5:D1B4:48BB:607D:F27A (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Yamla (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your "you cannot edit Wikipedia" statement: I just wanted to point out that his last sock, FireCoaster2005 (talk · contribs), was given the exact same information only three weeks ago. I think we're clearly going to need a rangeblock because he just doesn't get it. —{ CrypticCanadian } 21:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 2600:1004:B05E:87D5:D1B4:48BB:607D:F27A for self-admitted ban evasion. I'm unsure if the entire /32 range should be blocked. I strongly suspect yes, but someone more knowledgable in IPv6 would be better suited to take action. I further state there's no chance of the ban being lifted at this time, given the evasion and given the WP:CIR issues. Maybe in a few years. --Yamla (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Check declined by a checkuser - -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Yamla: the /32 should definitely not be blocked. Sock is blocked, someone else put a /40, so closing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Reporting myself, I have had Enough of Wikipedia editing, and wiki editing in general.--24.211.69.28 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• IP already blocked for trolling. Nothing of concern's come out of the wider ranges since the block (I've checked out to the /17). I think this can be closed. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Already blocked. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BobTheBuilder696966s Army Rises (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Self admitted, reporting for CU sleeper check. aeschyIus (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Just look at the contribs for this user, specifically on Pink Floyd - The Wall and The Sims 2. IanDBeacon (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See also BobTheBuilder6969666 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) which appeared before this sock. JavaHurricane 01:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BobTheBuilder6969666s Army (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Per username pattern and self-admission, please merge with the top report. JavaHurricane 12:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk endorsed - for a sleeper check, and an IP block if possible. --Blablubbs|talk 08:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I've merged three largely redundant filings (see here). My endorse goes for all accounts here. --Blablubbs|talk 12:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing new uncovered, globally locked already, also global IP block in place. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  No tags, closing. Also noting that I've removed a pro-forma report form the archive because the sock was later found to be unrelated in a different SPI. This group might be related to that one, though I'm not sure if this needs disentangling. --Blablubbs|talk 17:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]