Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carthage44/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Carthage44


Carthage44

13 August 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


The user has been blocked from editing for 2 weeks, which was recently reduced to 1 week. However, it is suspected the user is using the same IP address that has been used, and blocked in the past to make edits to very similar pages as Carthage44 edit history. No activity from the IP since 8 July 2011 to 11 August 2012. The user was blocked 9 August 2012. Zepppep (talk) 09:40, 13 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


13 August 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
  • 74.94.112.249 started editing on 12 August 2009 [1]
  • User 74.94.112.249 started editing on 21 August 2009 [2]
  • User talk:74.94.112.249 admits to using the same computer [3].
  • Both accounts edit almost exclusively articles about baseball and have apparently edited the same 56 pages [4].
  • Many of the 74.94.112.249 edits coincide with Carthage44's blocks. Has not edited since 8 July. Edits (65 to date since 11 August) begins editing again on 11 August,[5] the day of Carthag44's most recent block.

This looks like a clear case of block evasion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the IP nearly an hour to respond to the sock warning but they have continued to edit, I have blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 13 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
29 August 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

This is a static IP. In the earlier investigation on this IP, it was established already that "Many of the 74.94.112.249 edits coincide with Carthage44's blocks" and the IP was blocked for 2 weeks on 13 August 2012. Carthage44 is currently blocked indefinitely.

The IP has again resumed editing since August 28 after the last block expired. The edits by this IP continue to match those of Carthage44, who primarily edits baseball-related articles.[6]. —Bagumba (talk) 14:55, 29 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
21 September 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Carthage44 has been blocked for block evasion since August 13, and 74.94.112.249 was blocked as a sockpuppet on August 29. Afterwards, 99.31.116.89, a static IP, edited from August 30 – September 5, with a similar pattern of edits to Carthage44 on articles related to the Chicago White Sox, baseball, and the Wisconsin Badgers. This is consistent with the interests listed on Carthage44's previous user page.

Redmen44 started editing since September 13. The editing pattern also matches Carthage44's interest in baseball, Chicago White Sox, and Wisconsin Badgers. Both usernames end in 44. "Red men" is the nickname of Carthage College athletic teams. Carthage44's user page listed Carthage College as the user's alma mater. —Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. If it has been recommended Redmen44 be blocked, when might that occur? If a blocked editor is making edits then any attempts to circumvent the block by the editor should be halted immediately. Zepppep (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So based strictly on technical evidence, the matter is somewhere between "possible" and "likely." Based upon inference, edit tendencies, etc. it is certainly "likely" or higher (based upon editing habits as presented by Bagumba). The fact that an IP may not have edited for a few weeks is irrelevant, IMO. It can take a while for a pattern to be discovered. Also, it could also be argued Bagumba (or anyone else linking the habits of this user(s)) is AGF by waiting for enough evidence or a pattern to reveal itself, rather than creating a SPI at a whim. The blocked editor has already admitted making edits despite being banned and other attempts to circumvent the block. Zepppep (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • Endorse as originator of this investigation.—Bagumba (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I investigated the edits for the original SPI where Carthage admitted to using the IP from the same comuter. 99.31.116.89 is in a different state from Carthage's other IP adress but close enough in the same geographocal area on the lake. In the USA this distance (154 miles, 2h 53m by road) is nothing at all. Redman44 is most likely a sock of Carthage, but a CU will either confirm this; or that it is connecting from 99.31.116.89. but won't be able to publish the result. I would recommend blocking Redman and seeing if edits from 99.31.116.89 stop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have a CU then, please. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based purely on technical results this is somewhere in between   Possible and   Likely (I know, odd result to give). If you would like to request a second CU's opinion, feel free, because I'm not 100% sure on what i'm saying. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Same thing I would say. It's certainly possible, but just as certainly not conclusive enough to call it likely based on technical evidence.
    There's also a bit of selection bias that makes the evidence presented above a bit weaker: If a new editor starts editing at a Chicago baseball article, it's not unlikely that he would choose a username to reflect his interest. All of it taken together makes me certainly suspicious, but I'm not sure it's sufficient to act upon. Seeing that the edits themselves are apparently not problematic I would AGF and wait what happens next.
    Regarding the IP, it has seen no edits for two-and-a-half weeks so it's a bit moot at this point. I'll keep an eye on it.
    Amalthea 11:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the light of the comments from two CUs, I feel that we should AGF on this and keep a weather eye on it. As far as I'm concerned, this can be closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
  • Closing based on the judgement of the patrolling admin, with no prejudice to refile if more evidence surfaces later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
03 April 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Sounds like a WP:DUCK in a case of WP:BLOCKEVASION here, where the IP edits the favorite topics of Redmen44 when registered user is being scutinzed or is blocked. At 04:21, 6 March 2014, Redmen44 was notified that he was reported at WP:AN3 for warring at List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases. Hours later at 06:14, 6 March 2014‎, 50.77.171.74 curiously performs a revert the same as Redmen44's from 04:10, 6 March 2014‎.

Fast forward to more recently, where Redmen is blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring since 17:11, 31 March 2014 by User:DangerousPanda with unblock requests denied by User:JamesBWatson and User:Bbb23.[7] At 12:24, 3 April 2014‎, the IP edits again at List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases with edit summary of "Updated thru 4/2". Note that Redmen44 is the 2nd most active contributor to the article with 211 edits. If you look at Redmen44's contributions to the article, he provided daily updates before September 30, 2013 with edit summary like "Updated through ..."

Other edits by 50.77.171.74 on April 3 so far include

Finally, the initial 3 edits by 50.77.171.74 to 2013–14 Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball team were at 06:57, 5 February 2014, followed by edits to the same page by Redmen44 a minute later at 06:58.

Any argument of coincidental regional interest overlap in Wisconsin sports should be trumped by timing with Redmen44's blocks and same interest with Redmen44's favorite article in unrelated baseball subject, along with editing of articles Redmen44 created. —Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 3 April 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
  • Based on duck, I've blocked the IP for one month and added two weeks to Redmen44's block. Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And to prevent us from scratching our heads if we have to look at this again later, this 03 April 2014 case was originally in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redmen44. It was later established that Redmen44 is also a sock of Carthage44 (see below), prompting a merge.—Bagumba (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bagumba alerted me to the linkage between Carthage44 and Redmen44 on my talk page. After a review, I concluded that Redmen44 is a puppet of Carthage44. I therefore intend to block Redmen44 indefinitely and tag accordingly. I am copying the relevant and edited part of my talk page here to show what I did to come to that conclusion: I've been reviewing the two editors for quite some time now. I'd say the behavior is close enough to block. They don't talk a lot in comparison to the number of article edits they make, but stylistically they're often similar. The most obvious is both of them refer to Wikipedia as this "great site" when they've been blocked and want to be unblocked. They also both have a passive-aggressive style. Article-edit summary-wise, they both mention and change stats constantly, updating them, saying they're incorrect, etc. Even technically, there's a little bit of help. The IP I just blocked (50.77.171.74) is from Illinois, and so were the Carthage IPs. Despite their interest in next-door Wisconsin, they are obviously interested in Chicago teams. This edit shows that Redmen is a big White Sox fan and he calls them "our Sox", meaning he probably lives nearby. Finally, both use the number 44 in their user name. Not that I know anything about sports, but I'm assuming it's some player's number.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16 April 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Another WP:DUCK in a long history of WP:BLOCKEVASION by Carthage44. The last sock of 50.77.171.74 was blocked on April 5, 2014. 99.116.58.254 started editing right after on April 7, and edits match the articles edited by last sock 50.77.171.74. Like the April 3 investigation, the edits again include articles that were created by sock User:Redmen44 such as

As noted by admin User:Bbb23 in the last April 5 sock block, the editor's habit is to "change stats constantly"; including a few diffs for convenience, but pretty much this happens in all 99.116.58.254's edits.[8][9][10]. Also like the previous IP, this one is based in the state of Illinois too, with edits focused on Wisconsin and Chicago sports. —Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 16 April 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

  Clerk note: Bagumba, I see all the things you're saying, the article intersection, the Illinois connection, the timing, and the changing of stats. However, there's no behavioral evidence to go on (no edit summaries or posts to anything). Also, I don't see a relationship between the stat changes by this IP and the stat changes by the other accounts. For example, your first diff of the three you list in a row. Betraying my lack of sports knowledge, what's it mean? Is it a "good" edit? Are there any edits like it by the others? I'm almost ready to block based on duck, but I need a nudge if you can provide it.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing disruptive with these edits to date, but the same was the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carthage44/Archive#21_September_2012, but Redmen44 was eventually blocked as a sock a full 1.5 years later. I was resigned to Redmen44 being a WP:CLEANSTART until the same edit warring habits of Carthage44 eventually re-surfaced, and there is enough other history of block evasion in Carthage44's sock file. Techincally, WP:CLEANSTART does say that "a clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account."—Bagumba (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Administrator note This seems to be quacking to me, I concur. I think block evasion is enough to warrant a block; a block is supposed to mean something, even if the edits made during block evasion aren't disruptive. -- Atama頭 15:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Procedural report before blocking per WP:DUCK. Badgersox edits virtually completely overlap with past socks with interest in editing articles related to the Chicago White Sox, Wisconsin Badgers, and Carthage Red Men. Edits are frequently stats related as well. Moreover, user is continuing edit war pattern of sock Redmen44 at List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This recent revert undid another person's edit, whose rationale was "removed people that have no shot of getting to 300 in 2014". Redmen44 previously inserted similar lists multiple times e.g. [11][12][13]. Both Carthage44 and Redmen44 were prolific editors of List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases, and both have a history of edit warring.—Bagumba (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC) —Bagumba (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
24 July 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Procedural report before blocking another of a long pattern of WP:DUCKs for Carthage44. The previous sock, Badgersox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked on June 28, 2014. Abreu79 was created the next day on June 29. Editor Interaction Analyzer output is again showing common interest in articles related to Chicago White Sox with prior socks, primarily with 2014 Chicago White Sox season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where Abreu79 has taken over as virtually the exclusive daily editor of the article, as BadgerSox was prior to their being blocked. Other edits from Abreu79 are almost exclusively on articles related to Chicago White Sox players or their minor league affiliates. Like past socks, these edits are mostly statistics related, and require advanced skill in editing wiki code for tables. Past socks have documented history of starting within days after an earlier account was blocked as seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carthage44/Archive#13_August_2012_2, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carthage44/Archive#03_April_2014, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carthage44/Archive#16_April_2014

The username, Abreu79, follows past socks' pattern of using sports themes. In this case, current Chicago White Sox player José Abreu wears jersey No. 79. The username pattern of <word><2_digit_number> is similar to earlier socks Carthage44, and Redmen44 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carthage44/Archive#21_September_2012 for sports theme explanation of Carthage44 and Redmen44 names).

Like past socks, I anticipate this one may also make repetitive unblock requests feigning to be an unrelated user, such as Badgersox previously claiming "I am a baseball fan (White Sox fan first and foremost) so I enjoy editing those pages. I hope this was just a misunderstanding and I can get back to editing soon" in their 00:14, 28 June 2014 request, followed by "Reading into the unblock process, it says I can attempt to unblock again because I am not this carthage44 that you are saying you think I am ... Does anyone that makes similar edits to the 2014 White Sox page get blocked to?" in their 05:33, 28 June 2014 unblock request[14]. A previous blocked IP also made an unblock request claiming "What??? I do not understand what just happened? I make some edits and now I can not?"[15] —Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 24 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
31 July 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Another WP:DUCK case. 2x6x was created at 22:38, 25 July 2014. Previous sock Abreu79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s unblock request was denied at 13:39, 25 July 2014 after being blocked at 07:47, 24 July 2014. Carthage44 is a serial sockmaster for block evasion, as shown in prior socks started within days of being blocked as noted previously at Abreu79's sock case.

Abreu79's case also established that their was a strong interest in editing 2014 Chicago White Sox season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article was semi-protected at 08:08, 24 July 2014. New editors are not autoconfirmed to edit semi-protected articles until after 4 days and 10 edits. After accumulating the minimum 10 edits, 2x6x started editing 2014 Chicago White Sox season exactly 4 days later, continuing being the virtual exclusive editor of the article like socks Abreu79 and Badgersox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) before.

2x6x continues the trend stated at Abreu79's case that "edits are mostly statistics related, and require advanced skill in editing wiki code for tables."

Abreu79 case also established that Cathage44 socks habitually make repeated unblock requests, claiming they are unrelated editors who just happen to be Chicago White Sox fans. The admin that declined Abreu79's request also ran a checkuser and confirmed the user was a "verified abuser of multiple accounts." Presumably to evade detection, 2x6x has also edited non-White Sox articles, though still all related to baseball and all statistics-related edits.

Checkuser is being requested to see if there are any sleepers in light of new behavior to evade detection.—Bagumba (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC) —Bagumba (talk) 20:02, 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

  Administrator note In addition to CU check for sleepers, should a WP:RANGE block on IPs be considered based on frequent evasion and track record of serial sock account creation.—Bagumba (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I handled this one. Elockid (Talk) 02:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2x6x was requesting an unblock, so I ran a checkuser, and yes, he's   Technically indistinguishable from Abreu79. Also, Love4thegame is a sleeper sock blocked by Elockid. PhilKnight (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
04 April 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Procedural report before blocking another WP:DUCK. Destiny7awaits shared common interest with past socks in the Wisconsin Badgers and basketball in the Big Ten Conference. User has same habit of consecutive edits to revert information, only to restore the text with only minor enhancements. Like past socks, user typically performs reverts without explanation, and has a tendency to edit war.

The last set of socks was blocked on July 31, 2014, and Destiny7awaits was created weeks later on August 15. Carthage44 professed to be a huge Wisconsin Badgers fan, and Destiny7awaits says they are a Wisconsin Badgers fan on their user page too. Early socks Carthage44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Redmen44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were frequent editors of Wisconsin Badgers related articles, as well as Big Ten basketball related articles [16][17]. Redmen44 and Destiny7awaits are the top two editors of the article for Wisconsin coach Bo Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Destiny7awaits is also a heavy contributor to Big Ten basketball related articles.

Redmen44 had the habit of individually undoing consecutive edits by other users one revert at a time, only to subsequently make their own edit to restore the contents with only minor changes. Consider the following:

At 9 March 2014‎ 16:27, Redmen44 made two consecutive reverts of JayCloud5 diff, and then performed an edit to basically restore the info diff of additions, which only resulted in minor changes diff of net changes.
On 10 February 2014‎ starting at 0:02, Redmen44 made six consecutive reverts of multiple users diff, but mostly restored the reverts [18], again with only minor net changes diff

Here are some past warnings that Redmen44 was given on their talk page:

  • February 18, 2014, Redmen44 asked by Tewapack to "please stop 'undo'ing edits only to make the same edit yourself" [19]
  • February 19, 2014, Redmen44 warned about undos without an edit summary[20]

Destiny7awaits also performs consecutive undos, just to restore the info with minor changes.

Destiny7awaits makes three straight undos starting at 20:24, 3 April 2015‎ diff. They restore the information diff with only minor net changes that could have been achieved without needing to perform all the reverts diff.

There's also a peculiar set of undos at Frank Kaminsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Starting at 02:34, 29 March 2015‎, Destiny7awaits does seven consecutive unexplained reverts that results in no changes diff. The vandalism had already been cleaned up by prior editors, but Destiny7awaits still went and performed all the reverts.

Destiny7Awaits was also warned of this behavior by JayCloud5:

  • March 11, 2015: "If you could stop undoing my contributions, just so you can redo them...I'd appreciate it."[21]

Many of the past socks had received blocks for edit warring. Though not blocked for EW yet, Destiny7await has the same behavior. At Frank Kaminsky, edit warred by continuing to remove mention of height and playing position:

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

  Administrator note Destiny7awaits indef blocked as a WP:DUCK. Since the last SPI in July 2014 found a sleeper, and given the serial nature of this sock, requesting checkuser to 1) identify other sleepers, 2) request longer-term account creation blocks on underlying IPs of current sock.—Bagumba (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Completed I've dug through the checkuser logs and while the accounts are stale, there's some technical evidence that makes me think the account is   Likely a sock of Carthage44. However, the behavioral evidence helps out a lot more. From my check,   No sleepers immediately visible. Given that the last occurrence was in mid-2014 and there's no sleepers, I don't think a range block is needed. If it picks up, perhaps we can look at semi-protection or a range block if that's not feasible. Mike V • Talk 23:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
08 July 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Makes small tweaks to baseball-related articles, just like Carthage44 and his/her sockpuppets did.
  • This IP was blocked previously because a now-confirmed Carthage44 sock (Redmen44) used it to evade a block (could be a static IP). Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Administrator note IP blocked based on behavioral evidence alone. Same gnomish stats updates as before. Leaving CU request, not for this IP, but for scan of potential sleepers on serial sock.—Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: My closing and your comment overlapped. I don't see how a sleeper check could be run, certainly not against the IP as that is prohibited by the privacy policy, and the last sleeper check turned up nothing, plus the account blocked then is now stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Is the last sock, Destiny7awaits, stale also? If so, understood. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Yes.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


WP:DUCK that was created immediately after block appeal for last sock, Destiny7awaits, was denied. Same interest in Wisconsin Badgers and consistent revert behavior.—Bagumba (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC) —Bagumba (talk) 03:25, 29 November 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

  Administrator note User blocked and tagged.—Bagumba (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06 December 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Procedural report of WP:DUCKs immediately after the last block. Like past IPs, these are also based out of Illinois. —Bagumba (talk) 12:42, 6 December 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

  Administrator note Jtaylor2017 blocked and tagged, IPv6 range blocked.—Bagumba (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20 June 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Procedural report: As part of standard offer appeal (archived here), these IPs were WP:DUCKs editing from 2017 December – 2018 May.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC) —Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Administrator note 50.77.171.74 has been socking since 2014, and last editing in May 2018. Blocking for 1 year. Other IPs seem stale, and no action seems warranted.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

24 March 2022

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Procedural report before blocking WP:DUCKs. 50.77.171.74 was in past sock reports, and is again active with same behavior. The range 2600:1008:B000:0:0:0:0:0/39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which also covers a past related IP, was already blocked, and it seems like some of the edits there have the same behavior as here. —Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carthage44/Archive&oldid=1138668400"