Sju hav

Sju hav (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
12 October 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by 3s
[edit]

User imediately starts to re-adding text about a former Norwegian soldier. This is probably part of this soldier's ongoing campaign against the Norwegian gouvnerment, in which he claims to have been treated poorly, but has lost in the court system. The socks mentioned here are probably not the only ones, but these are obvious. S(l)lick nation for diff's like this where he reintroduces information about himself, the other two for their names. Sju means seven in Norwegian, so 7 hav, is just the nick written with numbers. Ssjur HavR is also the same nick, just with some letters added, maybe to give it a more "norse look"? My guess is that there's probably tons of other socks as well... See no:Kategori:Mistenkte sokkedukker for Sju hav for the users Norwegian socks. On no:wp he's returning with a new account several times a week... BW 3s (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC) 3s (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

You could throw in Perpendicular_end (talk · contribs), New_York_minute (talk · contribs) and Zanzibar_bulsara (talk · contribs)

and I also suspect Cashier_dream (talk · contribs), 193.91.168.53 (talk · contribs) and Kingdom_of_Norw._desss-machines (talk · contribs)

pluss I'm sure a lot more since the last time I looked into this (which is a while ago). Those I listed are probably to old to give any reasonable CU result though.

Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

There's a lot of stale accounts listed, but I can say the following are  Confirmed:

27 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:Sju hav is a prolific sockmaster on the Norwegian Wikipedia and is also active here, creating two socks in the last month. In the opinion of Eisfbnore, an editor active both here and at the Norwegian Wikipedia, this is the proponent (or supporter) of the person involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bjørn Sagvolden. This is a former Norwegian army soldier who filed a claim against his government, and has been fighting the cause both at no.wiki and here ever since. In the opinion of User:3s, an editor who spends more time at no.wiki than here, the creation of the article on Bjørn Sagvolden was "propaganda in connection with an ongoing lawsuit." He makes new postings at WT:Norway, like a new one from yesterday about a person named Knut Braa who also has a lawsuit against the Norwegian government. These posts at the Norwegian WikiProject cannot be considered to be good-faith queries about Wikipedia's coverage of Norway. For previous discussions see:

One question for admins to decide is how to deal with new postings at WT:Norway that appear to emanate from this person. The local editors often delete these posts as 'trolling', which gets us into issues with edit warring if he restores them. Admins should have some background to fall back on if they decide to block these individuals and mark them as socks of User:Sju hav, which is obviously one way to deal with the situation. Any guidance from checkuser would improve our certainty that this is the right approach to take in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2011 (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]

Well, here's the list (all  Confirmed matches):

25 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

User:Ønography has recently been blocked on nowp for reportedly being a sock of Sju hav. They (and User:Hirzflag) are asking questions about notability of Norwegian individuals on the WT:NORWAY page, just as the Sju hav socks User:Kollibris and User:Corner benchmark formerly did. See also these comments by 4ing (talk · contribs) and paaln (talk · contribs) in this SPI. Eisfbnore • talk 13:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed the following are the same:

Taking a look at the Norwegian sock category, I see that both Ønography and My public account are included in their category. Since the abuse here on enwiki is just an overflow from the Norwegian one, I think we could take account of their findings. 'Mistenkte Sokkeduker' is suspected sock puppets. My inclination is to make Groups 1 and 2 be the same editor and block all of the accounts listed above. Here is the syntax for determining if one of their listed accounts is blocked: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spesial:Bidrag/Huseis; I did not check everything in their category to be sure they are all blocked. One of their blocking admins is http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:KEN and his user page says he speaks English. There is some risk of recursion since this reason is given on no.wiki for blocking the Norwegian My_public_account, and it's a link to our sock report! [1]. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may have misinterpreted the first CU report here, I read it as if these two groups were likely linked. In group 2, both Hirzflag and Telescopus had previously been identified as likely socks of Sju hav by user:4ing / no:bruker:4ing - an experienced admin whose judgement in these matters I have great trust in. Thus - upon seeing this CU - I also blocked My public account and Roufinh as suspected socks of the same. However, 4ing also identified Ønography as a sock of Sju hav - if this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nautilyus this is somewhat puzzling. I notice that several accounts in group 1 have been active at fawiki - I can't recall having seen socks of sju hav editing there previously. Anyway, I'll leave a note for 4ing and see if he can shed some more light from the Norwegian perspective. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Behavioral notes
Ønography has posted at WT:NORWAY asking for the creation of an article on Svein Eidsvik, a military man. This is the trademark of User:Sju hav. Ønography has many contributions to military articles on enwiki. We assume that Sju hav is a former Norwegian soldier.
BASED ON BEHAVIOR (editing interests):
  • Tabande, Joztotjoo, Konjkaw, Infotica are User:Nautilyus (They write about Iran and the Kurds)
  • Ønography and My public account are User:Sju hav (They write about military things and some Norwegian topics)
Hirzflag, Roufinh and Telescopus seem to have little in common with either of the above two groups. I would leave them unblocked. Might be different people walking by the same public terminal. I realize that my assessment doesn't explain how Nautilyus and Ønography wind up sharing a computer. (The soldier and his wife, perhaps?) There is the curious fact that both Hirzflag and Ønography have posted at WT:NORWAY, but their posts seem unrelated. Hirzflag's contributions at no.wiki seem quite harmless. I am guessing that Group 2 are editing from a public terminal at an institution in Norway. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think User:My public account, not yet blocked, is a sock of Sju hav. Note these wikistalk results, showing five articles in common between Ønography and My public account, when the second account was only created on 18 August. This is too much to be a coincidence. I make out User:My public account to be an occasional user of a public terminal, which is why the other members of Group 2 are not him. Note these diffs at Apache (disambiguation): My public account and Ønography. Practically the same edit, two days apart, both restoring a specific red link to an article not yet created. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have strong doubts that all these accounts are the same person, especially when I see the extremely long list of suspected sock puppets at nowp. I guess its some other effect that is observed. In Norway it is very common to be NAT'ed, and even have dynamic IP-addresses after the NAT'ing. This makes it extremely difficult to say anything useful about different users, wetter they are the same or not. The only somewhat usable tool I know about is to track the involved addresses in a trace route, but that only works for anonymous users and only if you have some idea who is trying to hide. If people misconduct block them as individuals, trying to hunt down sock puppets in Norway is very difficult. As long as someone is just an annoyance just forget them, if they start to be troublesome block them, but not block someone because they share IP-adress – it might be the schools in a county with 500 000 peoples. Jeblad (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hirzflag, Ønography and My_public_account can be identified as sock puppets of Sju hav by edit patterns. Asking questions like this [2] [3] [4] on talk pages is one strong indication. Formatting "finger prints" is another, eg. is using two dashes without a preceeding space in the signature not common ([5] [6] [7]). - 4ing (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well keep this one open, he is at it again. Please take a look at User:Narant Special:Contributions/Narant . Same fingerprints, same Modus Operandi. Paaln (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed as Ønography.  IP blocked. –MuZemike 19:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Based on editpattern and articles of interest same user again, see archive for recent cases. Clever enouogh not to edit Wikipedia in Norwegian this time around :P Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has been editing on no:wp using the name GorodGeroy2, which he also has used to create a user page here on en:wp. - 4ing (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

It's  Likely that Solotaig is a match to BustingInflatedEgos (talk · contribs). TNXMan 14:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Based on editpattern and articles of interest same user again, see archive for recent cases. Blocked on no:wp for same reason. - 4ing (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I have edited the article about North_Cape,_Norway#Admission_fee_controversy (about tourists complaining to the Government, and the Government thereafter making demands to the compan/companies that charge admission fee).
And
  • My questions about articles Offshore divers v. Norway 2007. and Offshore divers v. Norway 2008, are here [8].
  • I translated the article about fr:Laurent Bonelli, from French to Norwegian.
My user contributions on wikipedia in Norwegian, [9]: 7 edits (and 3 subjects).
Please explain to me what the common denominator is, you are not specific at all. "Edit pattern"? Please make your case here, instead of daisy-chaining to "edit patterns" at other locations.
Are my contributions on English wikipedia, a problem for Wikipedia in Norwegian? Is that the reason for being blocked on wikipedia in Norwegian? Arvein (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

A  Likely match to previous accounts. TNXMan 15:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

23 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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

 Confirmed, already blocked on no.. TNXMan 14:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Sutkas indef and tagged the user page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please check Special:Contributions/155.55.60.112, based on edit pattern. - 4ing (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

And please keep in mind the possibility that the plaintiff (4ing) might be on some sort of interwiki raid to muzzle/gag certain subjects. He has already been plying his trade on wiki in Norwegian, by deleting two articles today regarding Abdul Ahmad and Salah Mohammad Ali, without nominating the articles for deletion and following formal procedures — but simply claiming "Not relevant for wikipedia" ("Ikke relevant for Wikipedia: Innholdet var: …").

The Norwegian article about Ben Griffin (British Army soldier) needed this discussion [10] and 2 other discussions [11] over 2 years before notability was established.

The gagging of wikipedians and their articles by blocking accounts, seems to be ordinary fare on wiki-Norwegian — and now apparently trying to come to a wikipedia near you? Just say "No"!--155.55.60.112 (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
12 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

I guess that the above IPs are used for advocating by Sju hav, owing to their edit pattern and articles of interest. They have been introducing numerous BLP violations in articles on Norwegian government officials. --Eisfbnore talk 12:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
17 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

This account showed up out of nowhere and started creating articles right off the bat. 85.165.229.124, an IP that I've blocked as evasion for Sju hav, has edited those articles basically right after. Endorsing for clarification and sleepers. For reference, I believe Sutkas (talk · contribs) can be used for a CU. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
16 January 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please check user:Ribroll, based on edit pattern. - 4ing (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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

 Confirmed, plus Cayhadiv (talk · contribs). TNXMan 15:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

It has been suggested to me that this is a sockpuppet, and I can see some key similarities. Hamburgerstand is editing articles related to Norway, as have just about all of Sju hav's multitude of socks, and there is a key grammatical characteristic evident in the edit summaries of Hamburgerstand and a number of the other confirmed socks (don't want to spill the beans, but I'll be happy to answer an email). Examples...

Most of the old accounts will be stale for checkuser purposes, but there might well be sleepers. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, edits about corruption and secrecy in Norway and about armed forces veterans, which seem like characteristic topics - [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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

 Confirmed the following are the same:

14 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Same evidence as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav/Archive#12 March 2012, registered just after User:Hamburgerstand was caught and blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2012 (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]

Carrotwall (talk · contribs) is a  Confirmed match to Hamburgerstand, Chain of koools is a  Possible match. TNXMan 14:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

23 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The same editing style and edit summaries as previously blocked sockpuppets (e.g. on Berit Ås (by blocked sock User:Chain of koools [17] and by Rugcity [18])), and concentration on Norwegian topics, including those related to the military. A return to rehash his opinions about Nordic Women's University ([19] and [20]) shortly after sock User:Hamburgerstand was blocked in the middle of doing the same (e.g. [21] and [22]). Same approach to posts at WT:MILHIST as other socks, compare Rugcity - [23] and blocked socks User:Chadburrey ([24]) and User:Ribroll ([25])for example. Benea (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2012 (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]


26 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Immediately after last sock User:Rugcity was blocked, up pops Tumorlenk, and immediately resumes comments on WT:MILHIST about the Norwegian military and the contribution to the ISAF (Tumorlenk and Rugcity). Also note the similar edit summary styles and edit patterns, not just between those two accounts, but also the large numbers of previously blocked socks. Benea (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

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

 Confirmed that Computadorcorriente (talk · contribs) is the same as Tumorlenk. They're the same as Rugcity. TNXMan 18:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

03 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Continuing blocked sock Computadorcorriente's arguments. Paul_012 (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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

The IP hasn't edited in a couple of days, so I'll mark for close. TNXMan 14:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

06 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Added 7 April:

IPs continuing User:Computadorcorriente's disruptive editing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand.[26][27][28][29] User appears to be jumping between ISPs. Is there a more proper venue to deal with this? Paul_012 (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2012 (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 Administrator note Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand protected. Elockid (Talk) 20:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I'm acting on the tip from Eisfbnore (talk · contribs) (see). As for the relation between the IP and the registered account, see this and this edit. I don't find that link conclusive although I made the assertion of the connection in my welcoming message on User talk:Sywoofer, and this was not refuted. As for the assertion that Sywoofer equates to Sju have I'm relying exclusively on the say-so of Eisfbnore as I have no previous experience in submitting CheckUser requests or participating in sockpuppet investigations. __ meco (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Is the real problem that someone is improving articles about Jonas Gahr Støre and Norway-India foreign relations (and therefore one is alleged to be a sockpuppet master?

I must admit to having edited articles which are mentioned on Talk:Meco, after he presented himself on my talk page. --Sywoofer (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been previous discussions about how many thousand users, that use the mentioned IP address. I was not aware of that I have become an ambassador for that IP address—please run that by me again, how that happened. --Sywoofer (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% sure that this is the same user and have therefore blocked him. Geschichte (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I made the report here was to have a CheckUser probe made so as to establish with a higher degree of confidence that the user is a sockpuppet. Although it is hard to beat "100% certainty", that is still a subjective assessment, and you do not divulge upon what you base your conclusion. I have now submitted a second user name that has only now been activated. As I mentioned above this is the first time I am submitting user names for CheckUser or even involving myself in sockpuppet investigations. The reason for my reticence is the fear that these proceedings are not conducted with an appropriate level of caution and due diligence and that mere suspicions lead to contributors becoming blocked from editing. Unless I can see more of the basis for your decision or a CheckUser can corroborate the initial suspicion, I am likely to remain unwilling to report similar cases in the future. __meco (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are already 46 confirmed sockpuppets for this person. Add to this the 36 suspected ones, and that's more than enough for me to block the editor for disruptive editing when he shows up, as per the template text "Please refer to editing habits, contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence". An investigation is most welcome, though, so that the socks can be moved from the suspected to the confirmed category. Geschichte (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Everyone's blocked, so I'll mark for close. TNXMan 18:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


17 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User appears in the continuum following 155.55.60.112, Sywoofer and S.A.Larry. Edits to Jonas Gahr Støre suggest this may be the same person. meco (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I am guilty of being one of about a hundred users to have edited the article about Jonas Gahr Støre, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonas_Gahr_St%C3%B8re&offset=&limit=500&action=history.

Maybe we can have an automatic Check User routine, of everyone who edits that page. --Flowerwall (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This post caught my attention (the users first edit), where he complaint that a page created by a sock of Sju hav (don't know which one) was speedy deleted,and ask what can be done so that the article about Marcel Gleffe (created by Høvel, and improved by a IP, both socks of Sju hav) will not be speedied. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flowerwall is a  Possible, bordering on  Likely, match to previous accounts. TNXMan 18:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No parking here is  Unlikely to be Flowerwall. Closing case, AGK [•] 22:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please check edit pattern & articles of interest. --Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 11:13, 11 May 2012 (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]

Please see the archive for more info on No parking here. In the future when filing cases, please provide specific evidence of a connection. A generic "edit pattern & articles of interest" is not enough info to proceed with a case. TNXMan 13:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This account shares some editing traits with the other Sju hav socks: their first edit consisted of addition of criticism to the Norwegian BLP Jonas Gahr Støre[30] Please note that the first edits of the already confirmed sock Sywoofer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also consisted of additions of criticism to the same BLP.[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. The same goes for S.A.Larry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[45][46][47][48][49][50]

When editing, they add citations that are barely formatted, almost always only consisting of a bare URL.[51][52][53][54][55][56][57] The same did Blåplugg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[58][59][60]

Now let's take a look at their talk page comments. The same, infamous grammatical characteristic earlier mentioned by Boing in this SPI is frequently found in his edit summaries and talk page comments.[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]. They also frequently use bold text in discussions[72][73][74][75], just as Arvein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[76][77] and BustingInflatedEgos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[78][79] did.--Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 11:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Bold type redirects to Emphasis (typography). I am not sure of the ratio of users of bold, and the users of italics, to those who use neither. Can someone tell me?

I am not sure of the ratio of users who "almost always only consisting of a bare URL", to users of other styles. Can someone tell me?

"infamous grammatical characteristic earlier mentioned by Boing", I don't understand.

Jonas Gahr Støre was at the top of the news, for a while. When I came onboard, I saw deficencies with that article.

Please ask Jimmy Wales to look at this discussion. I do not appreciate being harassed a second time. Whatever the result of voting on the matter at hand, I will always have to wonder if I want to risk being harassed with a third investigation—the next time I make an edit about Jonas Gahr Støre.

I suspect that this investigation is a result of some editors not wanting this [80] version of the article about AUF. (The rudest edit remarks levelled at me, are from a prolific editor of the Eskil Pedersen article.) --No parking here (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No parking here - If you are new to Wikipedia, how can you know that me and User:Toresbe are prolific editors of Eskil Pedersen? (I don't know if you are talking about me or him.) Speaking of Pedersen, looking at the talk-pages Talk:Eskil Pedersen and Talk:Workers' Youth League (Norway), you'll find the exact same way of writing on talk-pages as User:Eisfbnore have already explained: The three socks User:Arvein, User:85.166.141.247, User:85.165.229.54 on Pedersen's talk page and User:No parking here on Workers' Youth League's talk page looks like the same person to me. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find the annoyingly frequent use of bold in talk page discussions rather uniquely identifying. I have never come across another user with this style, that I can remember. __meco (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that No parking here is highly likely to be evading a block, and that he is identical to Sju hav. Just look at the contributions and style. Geschichte (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer a shadow of doubt in my mind about this, and to protect Wikipedia I am blocking this sockpuppet as well. Please do proceed with the above investigation, but if the CheckUser is inconclusive, he has just found another IP or something. That said I will not make the mistake of waiting for the conclusion of such an investigation again, as per "CheckUser data is of limited use, and a negative finding never precludes obvious sock-puppetry". If it's the same user, it's the same user. Geschichte (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way for a sockmaster to become unblocked? __meco (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we are discussing the user behind No parking here, he is not only blocked but de facto banned from Wikipedia altogether, and there would have to be some pretty good reasons for lifting that. Geschichte (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'm unaware of the background history with regards to the Sju Hav sock situation. What does it mean "de facto banned from Wikipedia altogether" as compared to blocked from editing the English Wikipedia? And were there aggravating circumstances beyond being a sockpuppeteer? __meco (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was probably a case against the original Sju hav back in the day, and the reason why he was unwanted was the repeated insertion of contentious material and non-cooperation with other users. (Like now). A user can be blocked for any period of time, but still be allowed to return, and a ban can range from a specific topic to the whole Wikipedia, I meant the English Wikipedia altogether. De facto banned means: "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." Geschichte (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a proposal to ban the editor at AN right now, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ban_proposal_for_editor_Sju_hav. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user has apparently requested a formal unblock via the original Sju Hav account, a request which I have conditionally endorsed. Please see User talk:Sju hav. __meco (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
03 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Pattern of edits seems to conform with previous sockpuppets with respect to main focus of editing, i.e. politically controversial Norwegian topics, and also the same pov as previously. User also leans on me for support, which the previous several of this user's sockpuppets have also done.

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. You have offered your help [85]. Your subsequent assertation that "User also leans on me for support", makes me think of the word Chutzpah. --Vistamesa (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also welcomed several of the previous sockpuppets. Turning to me with encouragements of getting involved in the editing of these articles is fine. But it is not very common, at all. Especially considering I add welcome templates to dozens of new accounts a day. __meco (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he have dropped the bolding on talk-pages, after that was highlighted in the last discussion, But other then that, his editing pattern stays the same. I don't want to tell in public what reveals him, as he tends to adapt his edit-pattern, but I have a strong feeling that this is same user. (I can be reached by mail, for more info). Also, this edit looks like a confession, giving the sockmaster and puppets history with the article about Nordic Women's University. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too noticed that particular edit, and it confounded me; I couldn't quite make sense of it. But I did think along the lines which you outline. And I agree about the edit pattern, obviously. I too attempted to investigate the bold pattern, but with the highlighting of that particular trait during recent sockpuppet investigations, it isn't hard to figure the user might have simply adapted on this one point. Also, I am a bit disappointed as I have obviously this user's trust, and I tried to use this leverage to encourage him/her (I'm being politically correct, but my gut feeling says male—not important, sure) to abstain from editing for the minimum six months period and then apply for a shot at a clean start. I had hoped the user would be able to show this minimum of decorum and discipline. Had that been the case, it would by now only be 2 more months before the user would have been eligible to request a new beginning. __meco (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Blocked and tagged. --MuZemike 23:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Topic selection and attitude/angle of edits suggest this is once again a new sockpuppet of Sju hav appearing. I'll expect other, in particular Norwegian, users to corroborate my position or at least comment constructively. meco (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
15 September 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


As for Lucabrak, I suggested at WT:NORWAY that this might be a sockpuppet of Sju hav. Subsequently a Norwegian administrator took action and blocked the account indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sju hav. Still, I believe protocol demands that this action be reported here and subsesquently archived as a matter of procedure along with the rest of the sockpuppets of Sju hav.

A perhaps important observation I made as I undid all contributions by Lucabrak following the indefinite block, was in connection with edits to one of two articles that Lucabrak created and which I had speedily deleted using ((db-banned)) (I suppose only admins have access to look this up now). Following Lucabrak's creating of one of these articles, a list of Thai phrases, I believe, two IPs originating in Thailand made voluminous contributions to that list article. Lucabrak had made edits to a number of Thailand-related articles. So, what I wonder is whether this user (and consequently Sju hav) is a Norwegian expatriate residing in Thailand.

Etolin steps in as Lucabrak gets blocked, even gratuitously vouching for contributions made by Lucabrak on the talk page of Jimmy Wales, a venue used shortly before by Lucabrak to complain about suspicions cast upon him/her. Apart from some incidental and apparently random edits that could be perceived as a token attempt to lay a veneer of innocence, the principal focus of this user has been on Gjørv Report. Perhaps most revealing is an edit to Norwegian Public Safety Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where a deleted edit by Lucabrak is restored. meco (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2012 (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]
22 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Recreated an article about Bjørn Sagvolden, with the same type of arguments on user talk pages as earlier. - 4ing (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
12 February 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar editing pattern as Barnstar candidate school, first posting a post on User talk:Jimbo Wales before creating one article. Though the other sock created an article about Bjørn Sagvolden, this one created an article about Match fixing investigations of Norwegian Second Division, but the sockmaster does always edit about topics that are in the Norwegian news. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


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

 Confirmed Sju hav (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

 IP blocked. J.delanoygabsadds 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

26 April 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Normash has been quite open that their account was blocked for sockpuppetry on the Norwegian-language WP (see here and here for example). The account there has now been tagged as a sockpuppet of User:Sju hav. I understand that posting on Jimbo's page is also a habit of this sockmaster. Checkuser might be useful to identify other socks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

These [86] are my edits in Norwegian. No particular problems have been pointed out. Some kind of profiling going on. The reason for contacting Jimbo is that he is for me the most famous advocate against censorship on the internet. --Normash (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Clerk declined. All contributions by Sju hav and his already-known socks are stale, so I don't see anything for a CU to compare Normash to. A socking allegation will apparently need to be established behaviourally, or else not at all. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the purpose of the checkuser would be to discover unknown socks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is what's known as a sleeper check, so that's possible technically. Not commenting on the rest of it though. --Rschen7754 00:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no record of a CU being performed. At Norwegian, no pages [87] presently link to Bruker:Normash (user:Normash). Pages that link to Bruker:Sju Hav, include Bruker:Normash [88]. It seems to me that there are so few who insert those tags in their articles, that any new user who does, can get blocked for that reason only. Here is the diff [89] with my changes to the Spain National Football Team article. I have added plenty citation needed tags, during my less than 50 edits at Norwegian. An article that I started, that stayed on the front page for about a week might be viewed as some sort of problem. I am not sure. --Normash (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are an innocent user who got no connection to Sju hav, how do you know that Sju hav does add a whole lot of citation needed tags? Mentoz86 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on data in the checkuser logs, these accounts are  Likely related to Sju hav. T. Canens (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

23 May 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar to other Sju Hav socks like User:Barnstar candidate school, these three editors come out of the blue discussing Norwegian topics (mostly related to Norwegian politics and military) at User talk:Jimbo Wales? User:One direction of norw is discussing the "censoring of Jimbo's talk page on the Norwegian Wikipedia: some of the editors involved have there been blocked as socks of Sju Hav[90]. One direction of norw is interested in the Yugoslavia tribunal[91], just like User:Whatthatspells was. Looking at earlier socks: User:Barnstar candidate school made his only mainspace edit to an article about the Norwegian military; User:Casiogry (another recent sock) made his first edit to Anders Behring Breivik, while User:Rasta lørenskog is discussing the notability of a victim of Breivik at Jimbo's talk page; Casiogry also responded to a discussion at Jimbo's talk page started by User:Whatthatspells[92]. As a final example: User:Rasta lørensko is discussing the Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland at Jimbo's talk page today; the same article has been the focus of attention of User:Solotaig, another sockpuppet of Sju hav.

Considering the number of previous socks (and sleepers) used by Sju hav, and considering the remarkable similarity of interests and methods (e.g. approaching Jimbo Wales as a first edit), I believe that these three are probable socks of Sju hav, and that a checkuser to confirm this and find sleepers is warranted. Fram (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: some haste with this may be helpful, since he is now starting o nominate articles for AfD as well, including Bjørn Wegge, an article previously edited by User:Normash, another Sju hav sock. Fram (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
03 August 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

User has obviously been here before. Probably Sju hav - or some other sockmaster who likes Norwegian political scandals and so. (I recognize the edit pattern from previous banned usernames). See recently banned user:Tammarlakkarus as example. Iselilja (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
20 August 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Ship Owner Symposium's first edit and most of his subsequent was to Jonas Gahr Støre, an article a suspected sock of Sju Hav, Sywoofer, has previously made 19 edits to. Despite that the article was already tagged for neutrality issues, he insisted on inserting more negative material.12 His other interest was to insert material from a new political book into the Labour Party article.1 Sockmaster is known to write about what's in Norwegian news (see Mentoz's comment in a previous sock investigation), and especially scandalalous/political news. The book in question featured prominently in Norwegian news for a couple of days when Ship Owner Symposium was editing. He has obviously been at Wikipedia before, putting a block page on Meco's userpage.[93] Ship Owner Symposium has not edited for a couple a day, but a new user Ten by Ten arrived today, editing on the French/Moland case which is currently in Norwegian news, with a focus on Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's involvement and edit warring to get this criminal case into the prime minister's article.12. He also brought the case to Jimmy Wales's userpage.1 The sockmaster is known for editing that page. Both these users have focused on Labour Party politicians, the same as recently blocked sock Tammarlakkarus did. That user editwarred on Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen, and again with a focus on policial news and scandals.1. I also included Kebabpizza here. My first report was dismissed due to lack of evidence and I don't have have stronger evidence against the user now, as he has basically stopped editing. But his initial editing was the same, starting an article, now up for deletion, about a current political scandal (in the Conservative party) Tor Johannes Helleland hacking incident. That user had obviously also been here before. There aren't a whole lot of people involved in articles about Norwegian politicans, so there are few people to counter this sockmaster in his various incarnations and this can have severe negative effects on BLPs of leading Norwegian politicians. Sockmaster can make some decent edits when he goes outside the scandals segment, and his edits related to news and scandals are generally not vandalism on their face (which actually makes them more troublesome to handle), but they almost always have a negative overall effect on the articles, and need to be reverted. Iselilja (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Iselilja (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Based on Iselilja's comments above, I'm confident that Ten by ten and Ship owner sympisium is socks of Sju hav. I'd also like to add Ballguit (talk · contribs) to this, a single-purpose account that is only involved in editing Veigar Páll Gunnarsson transfer 2011, another case that is in the Norwegian news right now, and that Sju hav has previously been involved in editing. Mentoz86 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Cheers. LFaraone 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, sorry, I was misreading LFaraone's results due to the way text wraps on my browser. I thought he was saying all the listed accounts were Red X Unrelated to Sju hav, not  Likely him. I'll block the lot of them. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Continues editing on Norwegian Intelligence Service, as well as Havnelageret (ref. the sock Havnelageret (talk · contribs)) with same edit pattern (citing Norwegian newspapers etc., see SPI case from 20 August 2013). - 4ing (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Iselilja (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some common charactestics: Interested in news/scandals/military, often add news articles as external links )sometimes with Norwegian translation in parantheses), often inserts Norwegian words in parantheses in text.

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]
 Likely related to Sju hav and  Confirmed to each other are
 Likely related to Sju hav are:
 Possible to Sju hav is
 IP blocked
NativeForeigner Talk 18:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone also check whether there are more new ones, besides the already blocked User:Swingsel and User:Railer Chaistune? I have no doubts about these two, but if we can find other socks before they start editing, we make our life easier and his a bit harder. Fram (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19 October 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Restoring content to Yara International that various socks have added previously. SmartSE (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added Presente Porsgrunn that edited the same article extensively recently with a focus on alleged corruption Diff and is not yet tagged as a sockpuppet. I believe both suspected sockpuppets are pretty clear DUCKs, but one can always look for sleepers. Recognized sockpuppets of Sju Hav that has previously edited Yara extensively include User:Lebanese pop Diff, User:No parking here Diff, and User:Vistamesa Diff.
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
29 October 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Continued extensive editing on SS Ski Jäger Battalion "Norwegen" less than two days after the sock account Curitasbes was blocked. - 4ing (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
04 November 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
20 November 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I bumped into the article 2013 Valdresekspressen hijacking today, and my first thought was "this has been written by Sju hav". When looking at the page history User:Funny linguist have been the prime contributor. As always they are editing about events that are currently featured in the Norwegian news. By looking at this account's contributions to the articles Årdal and Beisfjord massacre, they also strikes me as being written by Sju hav . The article about Årdal has also previously been edited by another sock of Sju hav, User:Pergola Ård, while the Beisfjord massacre article has previously been edited by another sock, User:Bastequi. Given this sockmaster's history with using several accounts for different topics, I believe a checkuser is required to find any other socks that hasn't been discovered yet. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
23 November 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Reinserts Sju hav edits in Pelle group article (diff), which is previously heavily edited by two sockpuppets (Boreumo, Litholeum), probably also User:Keroscenic. In addition updated article based on Norwegian news. After being reverted, headed to Jimbo Wales' talk page (diff), which Sju hav is known to edit. Iselilja (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
31 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New editor that went directly to a favourite article and topic for Sju hav and exhibits the typical writing style of Sju hav, like inserting Norwegian words in text.Diff At least three recognized sockpuppets have edited the page (Boreumo), Sywoofer, Gerrymanders) and more puppets which aren't tagged. Another user has already reverted the current incarnation once as a sockpuppet, so easy to recognize for those who know the sockmaster's habit. / Sju hav has also been actively using another account recently which has a less clear pattern and which I haven't bothered to report, but will probably show up in checkuser; and there are more puppets (but some may be stale). Iselilja (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
18 August 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Abalonney (talk · contribs) has a typical Sju hav behaviour with insertion of trivia and arbitrary news from the Norwegian press, such as [94]. Also inserting news from bangkokpost.com ([95]), a behaviour shared with the previously blocked sock Paint my logo (talk · contribs) ([96]). The previously blocked sock U-boat_bunker (talk · contribs)'s contribution to the article Bergen has been continued by Abalonney (and other obvious socks: Selslapt (talk · contribs), Holoabu (talk · contribs), both editors also on Osvald Group together with Ubigshot (talk · contribs), Trabategr (talk · contribs) and Scrapesticker (talk · contribs)). - 4ing (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Yesterday I introduced a link that says that the Fish Market (Bergen) (Fisketorget (Bergen)) in Bergen has been voted as the city's number one tourist trap. Did I cross some sort of line by doing that? --Abalonney (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not encyclopedic to introduce the Fish Market with such a random information with a negative pov. You should start by presenting basic information in a neutral way, and if you decided to add something about the discussion of the quality of the marked, you should include more than one viewpoint. (But the whole Bergen article is a mess and could need a complete rewrite). Iselilja (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I've moved it back. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

The following is  Likely connection to the others:

Also, it seems that all the confirmed socks of Sju hav (talk · contribs) are stale, so I can't confirm whether the above sock farm is connected the sock master. PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would assert that this is also probably Lapsed Pacifist (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Request for Arb & Sock Investigation archive): I see common article subject interests and behavioral similarities. BrBruset (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and N7ure (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) also likely belong with the others based on behavior...The former adding adding a infobox criminal for their fifth edit ever to WP and the latter did the same. Any opinions on Sju and Lapsed being the same or am I the only one to think so?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I've moved it. Those two accounts are very old so not much point taking action there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28 September 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Sju hav is a Norwegian editor who typically focuses on what's in Norwegian news, with a tendency to overemphasis on controversies. Two new accounts started editing such controversies within a short time interval 27 September. Traycore edited about a controversy related to a monument for the Osvald group; the whole Osvald group article is mainly edited by Sju hav puppets. Pankycont started soon after editing the Peter Handke article about a controversy in Norway that followed a decision to give Handke the Ibsen award. He has come back today 28 September to further edit the article. This user often operates mutiple accounts similtanously. Iselilja (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited an article about an author receiving an award indirectly from my government. The author accepts the award but refuses most of the prize money. To be followed by a sockpuppet accusation ... ? --Pankycont (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fnaftoes edited the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking article which has previously been edited by Sju hav sock Oily bullies
Newportsand edited Fredrik Fasting Torgersen, about a controversial murder conviction. The article has previously been edited by at least three throw-away accounts that appear to be Sju hav, allthough none of those accounts are blocked or tagged. One of the throw-away accounts Gag-order for Norw.speakers in particular has the characteristics of Sju hav DiffDiff; even the account name indicates a problem user, another account with a somewhat similar name Soldiers naysayed by Norw.-speakers is clearly Sju hav and tagged as such at NOWP.
Iselilja (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Following are  Technically indistinguishable to each other and the above and somewhat behaviourally similar to master, but  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28 September 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Six accounts blocked yesterday, today continuing the editing on the Peter Handke article. - 4ing (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I came here for exactly the same reason, this user has exactly the same modus operandi as the previous socks, reverting to his material. Huldra (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
28 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New account editing on Osvald Group, an article almost solely edited by socks. Also adding information found in the Norwegian press, like [this]. - 4ing (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
09 November 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new users editing controversies/issues that are currently in Norwegian news. Often returning to articles previously edited by Sju hav puppets. Shows interest for war crimes in Norway during WWII.

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]
Please dig deeper. I see more potential socks, but can't release the names due to no blatantly obvious relation. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Iselilja: A new run has been done, and i've blocked several accounts. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
25 January 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
This user often uses many puppets, and it's good to always have one "warm" CU result for him. Iselilja (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iselilja (talk) 20:51, 25 January 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]
Following is  Possible to the archive, but will need to be judged on behaviour primarily: Louisedoverbl (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
17 February 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Failing the duck test by continuing editing on Asbjørn Sunde and Osvald Group. Modus operandi includes adding material from latest Norwegian newspapers [97]. - 4ing (talk) 14:20, 17 February 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]
20 February 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Started an article about an ongoing news headline in Norway - the Monika Case‎. Typical Sju hav subject, editiing and selection of user name... Have been blocked several days in a row when editing on the Norwegian version of the article with different sockpuppets. - 4ing (talk) 23:22, 20 February 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]
06 March 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This user has recently focused a lot on atrocities in Norway during WWII, and many of the articles the above sock puppets are involved in are almost exclusively edited by various Sju hav puppets (Osvald group, Beisfjord massacre etc). Many of these edits are quite benign (though often messy); I am reporting him now because Creambreek is in an edit conflict on Norwegian State Railways (Diff, diff, diff, diff). Iselilja (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanjagenije. Yeah, I know I made the report unduly short, much because I have the impression that Mike V has gained a quite good familiarity with this user. Both Creambreek and KrokHair made substantial edits to the Beisfjord massacre which is actually a quite strong indication of sock puppetry as substantial contributions to that article since 2013 have exclusively been done by Sju hav puppets (Houseonhillyprarie, Neckbet, Oily Bullies, FunnyLinguist, Bastequi, Narvik Centrum, Frostshirt (2012)). A typical feature is somewhat messy edits, often displaying sub-optimal English language skills, take a look the overall article (diff Creambreak, diff KrokHair. The article Nazi concentration camps in Norway was also edited by sock puppet Narvik Centrum in 2013, and in the last days by both Creambreak and KrokHair (KrokHair, Creambreak). So, there is a big editing overlap between the two "new users" KrokHair and Creambreak. As for Omacy, he edited the Osvald group article that is an obscure article practically only edited by Sju hav puppets; you can see that the Norwegian editor 4Ning who is very familiar with Sju hav reverted Omacy as a sock puppet. I can add more evidence if necessary. Iselilja (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije. I included the Ters edit as diff to show that the sockpuppet's edit was perceived as problematic. I have now stroken a diff by KrokHair that was incorrect. Sorry for that. Iselilja (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably home computer and "job" computer (he is known to edit from public(?) computers at the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration, e.g. no:Bruker:155.55.60.112). - 4ing (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence: Creambreek is basing his edits on recent articles in Norwegian newspapers (e.g. [98] and [99]) and is active on discussion pages with similar apearance as Dourkenw. Moonsurfatsj has edited on the article Night Will Fall in early February, while no:Bruker:Hjerneiling and no:Bruker:Paprikas edited the Norwegian version of the article in late January. Both have been blocked based on CU. User:Ogaysiis was also confirmed to be a sock in that check. Ogaysiis is a confirmed sock puppet of Sju hav. - 4ing (talk) 09:27, 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]
There are some other accounts on the same range with same UA that I'm not sure on, could someone else that a look please.
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Creambreek edits were from a different country in the same geographic area, hence why I thought possibility of a holiday. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


20 March 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new editor that goes straight to the article Frontschwester that was created by Creambreek (Sju hav). He has twice removed a speedy deletion tag, saying he intends to fix the article. Claims to be unrelated to Creambreek, but that's more than doubtful. Iselilja (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontschwester. - 4ing (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. Iselilja (talk) 01:39, 24 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]
23 March 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New editor continuing the work of Habilemonkac and Creambreek on Frontschwester. Same edit pattern and involvment in the AfD-discussion. - 4ing (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: White girl syndrome has only 5 edits, but this edit in an AfD discussion of an article created by a confirmed sock, perfectly formatted, indicates that this is an experienced Wikipedia user. That is not only suspicious, but also typical Sju hav. I've now also nominated the strongly related article Foreign volunteers for nursing for Germany during World War II, created by Habilemonkac today, for deletion. - 4ing (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Edelsteinen to the list. It's an account created in 2010, but it has been silent for five years after the initial edits. Every sign of Sju hav are present, e.g. editing on the same topic, now th earticle German occupation of Norway, citing Norwegian newspaper articles (and including Norwegian text in the footnote), restoring edits by Creambreek, and adding his current articles of interest to "See also" sections in more or less related articles. The edits from 2010 also links him to Sju hav: The confirmed sock Mahaventura has made several edits on the article Alta controversy, and Edelstenen has been active on the article's discussion page (I think Hurven also is an old sock). - 4ing (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Behavioral evidence suggests Habilemonkac (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) is a sock (I recognize this was previously CU'd), e.g., removing a Speedy Deletion tag from an article created by Sju sock puppet User:Creambreek, and then creating an article on the same topic, Foreign volunteers for nursing for Germany during World War II, and edit warring to remove it:

  1. [102]
  2. [103]
  3. [104]
  4. [105]
  5. [106]
Blocked by User:Bbb23': Special:Log/block&page=User:Habilemonkac JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Clerk note:4ing, please provide some WP:diffs to show connection between those editors. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed Registered to !vote "keep" at the AFD for an article created by Creambreek. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Working. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: DQ asked me to look at Habilemonkac - you may want to compare them to the last three confirmed accounts from the 06 March case. The behavioral evidence was enough for JoeSperrazza Bbb23 to indef them as a sock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also think there is strong enough technical evidence (not to mention behavioural overlap) to block Habilemonkac as a sock. I used previously confirmed sock Creambreek as a reference point.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DoRD, Risker, and DeltaQuad, with resepct to Habilemonkac and Creambreek, I ran my own CU. My conclusion was that the two accounts were confirmed. However, because of my newbie status, I was unwilling to issue a checkuser block without someone more experienced reviewing my findings. However, behaviorally, I had no problem indeffing, which I did. All the stuff I've read here happened either after I did what I did or at least I hadn't noticed it until now. I did send my findings to Ponyo for her opinion, but she may not respond quickly (she will eventually). Anyway, obviously I must be wrong (it's hard to imagine that Risker made an error), but at some point I'd like to understand why.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. First, I struck one of my comments. Now that I've looked at this more closely, the truth is I didn't realize before I ran the CU that Habilemonkac had already been reported. I don't know how I misssed that, and don't ask me to explain it because I can't. If I had noticed, I wouldn't have run the CU because of Risker's finding. Second, Ponyo has responded since I made my comments above, but I'll let her comment if she wishes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DoRD: @Risker: Bbb23 asked me to take a look at his findings and I also think there is strong enough technical evidence (not to mention behavioural overlap) to block Habilemonkac as a sock. I used previously confirmed sock Creambreek as a reference point.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to say that I've seen this and, though I haven't done additional checks, I have faith in my colleagues. I'll send a note to Functionaries-L. Risker (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bbb23 blocked them. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: @DeltaQuad, Risker, Ponyo, and DoRD: What's going on? The status of this case has been "in progress" for 8 days. Is anybody going to check White girl syndrome and Edelsteinen? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's anything else to do at this time, so I'm marking it as closed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
22 April 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New editor editing militayr history articles. Extensive activity on talk pages, including asking questions whether someone is deserving an article on Wikipedia and similar Sju hav behaviour. Have extensive edits on the articles Fall of Saigon and Operation Frequent Wind in the period 8-19 April, the same articles have been edited on Norwegian Wikipedia 21-22 April by a new user (which I have blocked as a Sju hav sockpuppet). Also edited Marine Security Guard, where his edits have been reverted twice by an admin. - 4ing (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two new ducks/sockpuppets have shown up: Neologismist and Nannenhootensingers. - 4ing (talk) 13:57, 23 April 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]
Comment I'm the admin that partially reverted some of his edits on Marine Security Guard; I see one striking similarity; both have the idiosyncratic habit of using a "Notes" section to add trivial asides, rather than putting actual references; that's enough for me to say that this one is a WP:DUCK. See this "note" that I reverted from one of 20yardsaway's edits, and look at the most recent deleted version of Bjorn Sagvolden. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good point. Now blocked per WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12 May 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Hammuhrtime has only edits on the article Osvald Group, an article almost solely edited by Sju hav sockpuppets. GeneralPericles continued the edits on Fall of Saigon after the previous batch of sockpuppets were blocked (his first edit definitely shows that he is an experienced user). 4gery by revisionist reinserted the sockpuppet edits in the article Marine Security Guard. The user name is probably a reference to me; he has used similar names on nowp (4'er-bandens_fænklubb, 4-fisle). - 4ing (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: I think the behavioural evidence is so strong that the accounts could be blocked without running CU. Here's some more details:

- 4ing (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
[edit]

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

i dont know what 4-fisle). - 4ing is talking about. --Hammuhrtime (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi guys. So, I'm really glad that it appears that I'm an experienced user, but I am actually not. I have, however, worked on other wikis in the past, and I have a general familiarity with Wikipedian rules -- I've been reading Wikipedia for years, and so I've picked it up mostly from seeing "the neutrality of this section is disputed," etc.

It's worth noting that, while the Fall of Saigon article was my first on Wikipedia, my account has existed for around a year. As you can see here, I made contributions to WikiVoyage in August 2014. Specifically, those contributions were edits to my hometown's page, if that helps for anything. Furthermore, the edits I made on Fall of Saigon were sort of spur of the moment -- I'm involved in the Vietnamese Student Association on my campus and was reading up on the Fall since it we were discussing Black April. I noticed the inconsistencies in that intro paragraph, and, after perusing the talk page, decided to make the reversions.

I just want to clarify, also, that I am editing from a university connection, and I know that can sometimes throw IP snooping for a loop. Also, I have used the name "GeneralPericles" on a variety of places on the web. I can provide them if that will help to dispute these charges.

Thanks, and I hope this is enough to clear my name. -- GeneralPericles (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 August 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I know the last known puppets of this master are stale; however as the sockmaster is known for often operating multiple puppets simultaneously I would like a check to see if this is also the case now. Iselilja (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Fasting Torgersen extensively (60-70 edits) (diff); as has previously puppets Newportsand (diff), Magnetoval (diff), Gag-order for Norw.speakers (not formally found to be a puppet, but clearly is one) (diff) and probably others. The article is a mess which is typically for articles heavily edited by Sju hav.
Inserted controversy to Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway (diff). Controversy section originally started by other sockpuppet Normash (diff)
Nazi concentration camps in Norway (diff), multiple edits. Previously edited by sockpuppet Creambreek (diff)
German occupation of Norway (diff), previously heavily edited by sockpuppet Edelsteinen (diff)
Bergen. Multiple edits (diff). Multiple other sockpuppets have previously edited Bergen and related articles (diff)

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

The new user has reinstalled User:Gazprompt's (confirmed sock) edits in the article about Fredrik Fasting Torgersen. This text was deleted due to sockpuppetry. - 4ing (talk) 08:01, 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]
  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) 08:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This diff ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marine_Security_Guard&action=history full revision history) shows the behaviour of reinserting deleted text. (User:4gery by revisionist)
  2. This diff (full revison history) shows the same behaviour from User:Zootkeg.
  3. This diff shows the typical behaviour of adding material found in today's Norwegian newspapers (esp. Klassekapmen). For similar behaviour, just do a search for "News" in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav/Archive. - 4ing (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creambreek was blocked in March - wouldn't it be stale? - 4ing (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Complete technical data is stored for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12 October 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New account editing on Osvald Group, an article almost solely edited by socks (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osvald_Group&action=history and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav/Archive). Also adding information found in the Norwegian press (esp. Klassekampen), like this (similar edit from previous sock). - 4ing (talk) 13:00, 12 October 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]

20 October 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

New account editing on Osvald Group, an article almost solely edited by socks (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osvald_Group&action=history and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav/Archive). Reinserting text from User:Tickertapestry, who was blocked a week ago after editing on the same article. - 4ing (talk) 09:52, 20 October 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]

3 October 2016

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Sju hav was unblocked on nowp in June, and reblocked last week. In that period, he has been alternating between editing logged in and logged out. For the last weeks he has been editing from the IP range 176.11.0.0/16, and this range has been blocked several times for shorter periods to try to stop his disruptive editing. He also filed an unblock request at enwp shortly after he was unblocked at nowp. It seems to me that he has been inactive at enwp during the period he was unblocked at nowp, but recent edits here indicates that he is turning to enwp when he is stopped at nowp. This edit is typical Sju hav, quoting recent news from newspaper articles, normally out of context. Bangkok Post is one of his favourites (search Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav/Archive for "Bangkok" to see edit similarities). 176.11.71.35 has made recent edits on the article Anders Behring Breivik, but the edit pattern similarties are more uncertain and difficult to compare due to the extensive copyedits. - 4ing (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These edits on Jimbo's discussion page are definitely Sju hav's. He likes "keeping Jimbo informed", and the same IP address was used on nowp and identified as belonging to Sju hav based on the nature of the edits. - 4ing (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
176.11.32.147 is also obviously Sju hav, citing news from his favorite newspaper Klassekampen. - 4ing (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added three "Jimbo-fans" to the list: 176.11.80.41, 176.11.146.3 and 176.11.215.26. - 4ing (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many weeks has Jimbo Wales user page at Wikipedia in Norwegian been closed for IP edits? Surely not only one person has ever contacted Jimbo at Wikipedia in English, from Norwegian IPs (especially in periods that the Norwegian user discussion has been closed for IPs)! 176.11.82.242 (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to mention that the sockmaster had his last edit on 24 July 2016, and will probably be stale in 12 days. I've also added three new IPs to the list based on activity on Jimbo's talk page. - 4ing (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

No, they are not related. Note also that Sju hav is editing with higly dynamic IP-adresses, while the Nazarian Para PMC editor has had the same since 30 September. - 4ing (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A new IP in the same range continued editing on 2011 Norway attacks, I've added it to the list. - 4ing (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 176.11.112.186 to the list. I'm not 100 % convinced that this is Sju hav, but edits like this is at least a strong indication - "scandal news" from the daily news. The Therese Johaug article has been extensively edited by several IPs in the 176.11.0.0/16 range. The same article on noWP was edited has been edited by 176.11.112.186 (who was editing on 2011 Norway attacks the same evening). - 4ing (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly Sju hav, I just filed my own report independently of 4ing, and is adding my comment here: "This user was unblocked for a time at Norwegian Wikipedia which didn't work out so well, so he was blocked again in September and has since then been editing as an IP, including at Therese Johaug at Norwegian Wikipedia. Typical issues with this user is: Focus on what's in Norwegian news, especially scandals & controversies. This time it's an ongoing doping case. Further: undue weight and Pov editing, bad English skills, and use of many quotes in article, overall leaves the article very messy. There are severe BLP issue with the article as a result of his edits." I hope you will take this seriously aNd deal with it quickly, due to the severe BLP issues. There are too few serious Norwegian users to counter this user simply by reverting, because we quickly end up in an edit war situation. Iselilja (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the clear BLP violations and inaction at this forum, I have reported the issue to ANI. Iselilja (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

07 January 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This long-time blocked user has been editing from dynamic IP adresses on enwp and nowp since ~May 2015, and more specific from 176.11.0.0/16 since ~July 2016 (except for a couple of unblock request last summer). In October 2016, the Therese Johaug article was protected due to persisten sock puppetry from 176.11.0.0/16. The IP has also been active on the 2011 Norway attacks article and related articles. Currently, the IP is editing extensively on the Beisfjord massacre, an article previously mainly edited by confirmed Sju hav socks (Orncider, Froshirt, Bastequi, Funny linguist, Oily bullies, Houseonhillyprarie, Creambreek and KrokHair). The related article Blood Road has also been heavily edited by the IP since the innocent User:Doremo created it in November 2016, and some minor edits on related (Korgen, Vefsn, Saltdal, Rognan, ...) and unrelated articles (Global Network for Rights and Development [108], where the confirmed sock Gazprompt is the top editor).

Since the sockpuppet edits from 176.11.0.0/16 started last summer, the only edits from 176.11.0.0/16 obviously not coming from the sock, has been on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazarian Para PMC. I don't know if a range block is acceptable for this quite large range, but I think it's the only way to stop the sockpuppetry. 4ing (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2017 (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]
More