Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Meowy


Report date May 17 2009, 12:42 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by User:Philip Baird Shearer

To date the user:Onlyoneanswer has only ever edit pages which user:Meowy has edited and on the talk pages has always supported Meowy's POV. The very first page edited by Onlyoneanswer was Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03-01/Mehmed Talat(Revision as of 23:11, 14 March 2009). Not the usual sort of page on which a new user makes their first edit, or the type of edit that a new user makes, and it was made less than 2 hours after user:Meowy said on that page "Don't ask me. I think I've said all I need to say, and I do not want to become involved in this invalid "mediation" process"[1]

More recently user:Onlyoneanswer has reverted an edit to Genocides in history, which is the same edit that user:Meowy had reverted a number of times and which was after I pointed out to user:Meowy that edits such as these edit were in violation of an arbcom restriction an this follow up comment.

By commenting in the section talk:genocides in history#Azerbaijani Khojaly, user:Onlyoneanswer has prevented user:Joebobby1985 from using the Wikipedia:Third opinion to help resolve the dispute, which was advise I had given user:Joebobby1985 (a relatively new editor) on their talk page --PBS (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Based on behavior alone these two accounts are related. As such I've indef'd the sock, and blocked the master account with a warning for 3 days. —— nixeagleemail me 17:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27 May 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit
Evidence submitted by Brandmeister
edit

Meowy (talk · contribs) was banned for 1 year and has been previously socking through Tamamtamamtamam (talk · contribs). The account of Ionidasz, which popped out some time after, WP:DUCKs in several ways. An interesting feature is the pattern of edit summaries: Ionidasz puts a full stop in nearly every edit summary, capitalizing initial letters of separate sentences, just like Meowy. In this sense both accounts show some love for tidying: [2] and [3] for example.

Here Ionidasz comes to partially recover the version of 88.232.192.190. This and all other IPs above point to Turkey with 81.214.144.172 repeatedly showing the aforementioned traits in edit summaries. Recently Ionidasz revealed that he has some "primary account". Brandmeister[t] 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Note that this followed after I gave my opinion to another user that Brandmeister should be reported. I have been checkusered already with two different user and just with how much more users I should be checked with? I can show him to be that user by using the same poor quality evidences. Ionidasz (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check what I allegedly recovered, this IP edits were different than mine, and it would have been obvious if Brandmeister had directly provided the diffs between my edit and this IP, insead of using two different comparaisons. As for my primary account, this is a secret between me and the CUser, the primary account is unrelated to the conflicted area. Ionidasz (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brandmeister changed recover with partially recover, it's ridiculous, I brought that part back, because no one disagreed on that part and it was only removed because the full revert was to remove this. And for God sake, do you really believe I'm from Turkey? Ionidasz (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Brandmeister[t] 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]


This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
03 November 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit



Evidence submitted by Tuscumbia
edit

Suspicious newly registered user. Jumped right into the heat of debate. Same for IP 78.86.151.248. Genuine contirbutors normally start with contributing to the encyclopedia, not entering a current heated debate. Either socks or a ducks of a blocked user. Please check. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He admitted using sock accounts here [4] Tuscumbia (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Blocked Magotteers, per clerk. Nakon 03:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
03 January 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

For some time these four accounts have been active in editing articles in Wikipedia, more active though after blocking of Magotteers, the sockpuppet of a banned User Meowy. The first three were limited to more or less specific articles such as Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh (just engaged in revert wars: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], further on, some reverts were supported by the other reported accounts Oliveriki (eg. [15], [16]), Vandorenfm (eg. [17]) which were apparently created for the sole purpose of avoiding 3RR and other restrictions) and Zar, Azerbaijan (with both Xebulon and IP 93.97.143.19 alternating [18]), whereas Xebulon became more active in the last few days and the latter one (IP 93.97.143.19) has been passionately editing the same articles and subject that User Meowy had been in the past. The behavioral pattern, character of edits is strikingly similar. The previous socks of Meowy User:Ionidasz and User:Magotteers had the same exact behavioral pattern. Meowy actually confirmed through his Magotteers account that he also was Ionidacz, and confirmed he had used sock accounts in the past all along (Please see [19]). So, there is no doubt that these accounts are closely related to the same person. Xebulon and Oliveriki might not be logged in from the same IP but they certainly quack like a duck.

I am not sure how much Meowy is Hetoum I, and how much these two banned users are related, but it was also confirmed by an administrator here [20] that it's apparently the same sockpuppeteer of many accounts. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another striking resemblence how the IP 93.97.143.19 and User Meowy make the same related edits with the similar data from the same source: [21] and today [22]. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Related edits" - Jeez! I copiedpasted a source that had been cited in that first article to place it in the other article. So obviously they have "similar data", it is the same source title, author, publication date, etc. Would you rather I invented a new title for the source so that the data was "different"? 93.97.143.19 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, I'm not surprised RobertMel can be involved, or is Meowy himself. See his edits here [23], [24] and here [25] on Seyran Ohanian discussion where he defends Meowy's position on the issue and where Meowy was the prime "debater", after which he was blocked for a period of one year. The user jumps from one IP to another. Abuse of multiple accounts is his motto. That's why I do believe accounts Xebulon, Oliveriki and Vandorenfm are either acting on his behalf following his instructions or he does it using various IPs. Please check today's edits by Xebulon and 93.97.143.19. Same stuff. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tuscumbia, I've checked the edits of all the accounts, but the only two who I can positively link are Magotteers (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and RobertMel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). The technical evidence strongly suggests that the rest are different people from hundreds of miles apart. It could be that the others are meatpuppets, though... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, that's what I meant by acting on his behalf. It could also suggest that the banned user is travelling because his new sock accounts (geographically unconfirmed) have always appeared in the heat of ongoing discussions such as both Ionidacz and Magotteers, for example.
How about the banned User Hetoum I? Isn't he related to Meowy or to any of the reported accounts above? I am asking because this admin suggested there was some link between them (Please see [26]) Tuscumbia (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a link as far as editing styles etc, so it may well be other people acting on his behalf: but I can't tell that for sure. As for User Hetoum I, his edits are too old for us to check (after a while, the edits go stale). Maybe a more experienced CU would have better luck linking them, I'll let them comment. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chase me ladies. Any relation to this account who is known to have been using socks as well? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking the concept of "fishing expedition" to new lows. Seems that ANYONE who ever objects to or reverses your edits is seen by you to be part of a single sockpuppet/meatpupped masterplan to do you down! 93.97.143.19 (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IP 93.97.143.19: Who the h-e-l-l is/are Xebulon, Oliveriki, Vandorenfm, Magotteers, et al? I am NONE of these people! - Yes, that's right. That's what both User:Ionidasz and User:Magotteers would say too :) It's obvious how much you travel. So even if the geography of your accounts may not match, the behavioral pattern does. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, dozens of people create multiple accounts and travel the world in order to edit obscure Wikipedia articles just to torment you! 93.97.143.19 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

Is there a jaw-drop smillie available to place here? If there was, I'd add it. I'd add a whole row of them to give the full effect of my surprise! Who the h-e-l-l is/are Xebulon, Oliveriki, Vandorenfm, Magotteers, et al? I am NONE of these people! I haven't even seen any of those names in any edit histories or talk pages of articles I have edited. I suggest that Tuscumbia's real reason for this is that I have recently added some material that he has objected to, most especially to the List_of_Armenian_churches_in_Nakhchivan article, and rather than either accept the material as valid (which it all is), or counter with legitimate arguments, he has chosen to take this route. I admit I went to that article after being concerned about his edits elsewhere and noticed he had made past edits to it too, so I was following him about somewhat (though there is nothing wrong in that) so Tuscumbia could have found my actions to be annoying and aggressive, directed at him alone (but they are not). Administrators, please check through all the content edits I have made and try to find anything objectionable in them - I am certain you will find nothing. About all you will find dubious is a talk page comment in which I was trying to be ironical. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through Tuscumbia's scattergun approach to making sockpuppetry allegations, and looking through the Defending yourself against claims page, I'll make the following point. What evidence has Tuscumbia presented to show that my account is acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner? I don't see any evidence. I am not using a login editing account for my own reasons. I don't need to explain those reasons, and I am doing nothing wrong in not having a username. Seeing an editor using a IP address is NOT a valid reason to make a sockpuppetry allegation against that editor. Maybe I will eventually make a named account, maybe I won't - it is nobody's business but mine. I find the majority of Tuscumbia's recent edits questionable, designed to remove accurate information and insert dubious content. That is why I have been following his edits and adding further content to articles he has been editing. However, Tuscumbia seems to think that ANYONE who disagrees with ANY of his edits is part of a worldwide sockpuppet/meatpuppet conspiracy and should thus be blocked. It doesn't matter if editor's IPs are different, if the geographical locations are different, if many months or even years separate edits, etc. Take his citing of RobertMel as a member of this alleged worldwide group. From what I can see, many months ago that editor made a couple of talk page suggestions Seyran Ohanian discussion, suggestions which Tuscumbia disagreed with. For that act alone, Tuscumbia would now condemn him as a sockpuppet. Tuscumbia's "evidence" against me is at about the same level - there is no evidence, all there is is a display of unrestrained paranoia! I have not been disruptive, I want to continue editing using this IP, and I probably will eventually make a named account, so please dismiss Tuscumbia's fantastic allegations out of hand. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've opened a named user account. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And for my first post under that new name, I need to say how troubling I find what has been going on. We seem to have example after example of accounts being blocked as sockpuppets not because of checkuser evidence but through speculative and entirely subjective "behavioural" reasons (the behaviour here being to edit an article that Tuscumbia has edited and having the audacity to interefere with a Tuscumbia edit). What has happened to the "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse" statement on the [27] article? I have been following Tuscumbia's edits because I find they have errors. So obviously I am editing the same articles as Tuscumbia. Another editor, Quantum666, seems to act in association with Tuscumbia, so I have also been following that editor's edits. The Wikipedia articles that I have edited are almost all connected by either Tuscumbia or Quantum666 having edited them, or are Wikilinked to articles that Tuscumbia or Quantum666 have edited. You might as well block Tuscumbia as a sockpuppet of me! Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep talking, Magotteers, RobertMel, Scribblescribblescribble, or whoever you are. One fact is undeniable, your editing pattern is the same as that of Meowy. Admins already linked RobertMel and Magoteers, and there was no Magoteers when Meowy was being blocked and RobertMel came to his defense in the Seyran Ohanian discussion. So, you can go on with your fantasy talk as much as you like, but what's obvious is undeniable. Travel somewhere else and open another account Magoteers :) You excel at that. After all, you have already admitted you used sock accounts. Thanks for your honesty. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can Tuscumbia really get away with making such bad faith statements? He/she has quite blatantly accused me of lying. Tuscumbia, what you call "editing pattern" is editing the same articles as you have edited but not agreeing with your edits. That is not sockpuppetry, that is how editing Wikipedia articles is done! You seem to want a one-article-needs-just-one-editor policy. Worst thing of all of this is that there is nothing disruptive in any 93.97.143.19 edits. Point out a single one that did anything negative to Wikipedia! Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then relax and let the administrators handle it. Why are you so nervous? :) Tuscumbia (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You try and relax if I were to call you a liar and say that you are a load of people you are not! Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Admins already linked RobertMel and Magoteers, and there was no Magoteers when Meowy was being blocked and RobertMel came to his defense" - Tuscumbia acts like he were straight out of a McCarthy-era witchhunt! Nobody has "linked" anyone. Z is a Communist because he dresses similar to Y who each lunchtime sat in the same park that X used to visit to feed pigeons that might well have been kept by W, who WAS a known comunist (according to sworn witness statement by V, a credit to our nation) and who had a pigeon loft full of pigeons that quite feasably could have been used to send secret communications to fellow Communists, including Z. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, wow, uhh ahh. Now relax, drink some water or something, and let the administrators handle it. They don't base their decisions on my statements. They check and verify facts on their own seeing things regular users can't. So, please sit back and wait for the administrators' comments. Thanks for your time. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You relax, while I find more insanity. You claim that lonidasz is Meowy is Magoteers. Yet on the archive page for this page and in response to a previous accusation an administrator stated that "Ionidasz is right. I cleared him in a previous case, which means he isn't Meowy either". And you have been using and agreeing with Magoteers's words that Magoteers is Lonidaz [28]. So Lonidaz is not Meowy according to administrators, Lonidaz is Magoteers according to Magoteers and you, yet Magoteers gets blocked for being Meowy! (But not because of CU evidence). And now RobertMel might be bocked for being Magoteers (because of CU evidence, the same cu evidence that did not link Magoteers to Meowy). McCarthy woud be proud. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit


01 February 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

I believe that currently banned Meowy (talk · contribs) runs all or at least one of the aforementioned socks, judging by similar eloquent edit summaries of Gorzaim, Vandorenfm and partially Aram-van. One of the pages of interest is Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where Gorzaim (whose activity is focused on Caucasian Albania) is backed by Vandorenfm (the latter reverts to the same version). Here Gorzaim recovers Aram-van's edit in image caption. Meowy's previous socks include Tamamtamamtamam (talk · contribs) with the most recent suspected one being Scribblescribblescribble (talk · contribs) (currently sleeping). Still, I don't exclude the possibility that the sockmaster is actually someone else. Meatpuppetry seems to be unlikely in my opinion, but this is left for further judgement. Twilightchill t 21:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

This is again a blind malicious accusation. I am accused of being Aram-van, yet a glance at my edits will show that my only connection to Aram-van's disruptive edits was to have reverted them (and to be called a vandal by him)! Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
09 February 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

The previous reports on Meowy were inconclusive, as Meowy's account was stale. However there's a clear evidence that the IP 93.97.143.19 belongs to Meowy: [29] This is also of interest: [30] This IP continued editing after Meowy was blocked for 1 year: [31] The IP posted in the previous report [32], and later in the same thread Scribblescribblescribble said that he opened a new account, and continued posting as a registered account: [33] In any case, the CU can establish whether 93.97.143.19 is Scribblescribblescribble. And since 93.97.143.19 is also Meowy, it is obvious that Meowy evaded his ban, first as an IP, and later as a registered account. Also, this tool shows the overlap of articles edited by both accounts: [34] Grandmaster 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I did not request a CU, but the person who runs the CU can check the connection between the IP and the named account for himself, without disclosing the results, even though the connection is obvious even without the CU. Grandmaster 12:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting observation here is that the name Scribblescribblescribble was created by the same pattern as the name of Meowy's previous CU proven sock User:Tamamtamamtamam. It is one word repeated 3 times. If something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Grandmaster 17:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Another damned bad faith sockpuppetry allegation! Always quack, quack, quack! Eh Mr Grandmaster?" [35] But setting aside the lack of knowledge you have just displayed about the origin of my particular user name, maybe you could explain Tamamtamamtamam for me, 'coz I don't know what that one means. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

Yes, this looks like WP:DUCK, unfortunately for the user. Biophys (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In just 5 weeks I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of the following: Andranikpasha, Aram-van, Gorzaim, Hetoum I, Ionidasz, Magotteers, Meowy, Oliveriki, RobertMel, Tamantamantaman, Vandorenfm, and Xebulon! A record or what? Why should I continue bothering to respond to this harassment? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said it was your IP address [36]? Please also look at this diff. Your interpretation? Biophys (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time to change the block on user:Meowy or it will expire next month. I propose we make it indefinite. -- PBS (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Just a note, since your case filing did not request a checkuser, but your summary appears to - checkuser cannot disclose connections between named accounts and IPs. TNXMan 12:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: If you look in the archive you'll see that Scribble has been mentioned before and found to be unconnected to a bunch of other editors, including Magotteers, who was blocked as a Meowy sock. So aside from the connection to the IP, I'm not sure what else can be done here? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the IP connection shows that Scribble is Meowy, which means that Meowy is evading his ban. He could use more than one IP, and his other IP could be the one that he used to sock as Magotteers, but it is quite obvious that Scribble and Meowy use the same IP, and edit the same articles in the same arbitration covered area. This cannot be a mere coincidence. Grandmaster 16:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, the IP of Magotteers did not match that of Meowy: [37] He was determined to be a sock on the basis of other evidence. In case of Scribble we have a perfect IP match, in addition to behavioral evidence. Grandmaster 17:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked Scribble^3 as a disruptive editor, one that is most likely a sock of a banned user. The behavior and the IP connection is just too much to ignore. Jehochman Talk 15:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, the IP is also being blocked by the autoblock. There isn't much else to do here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
07 April 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

All these people came to edit when one discussion and undoing reverts began on Tsitsernavank Monastery, Gandzasar monastery and Karabakh Khanate, Monte Melkonian. I have studied contributions of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive and Scribble^3. Just look at the articles Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive and how many times these two people used puppet users, specially when they were blocked by administrative users. The contributions of blocked people look the same with the users I am reporting to you. Can you check please? Dighapet (talk) 19:01, 7 April 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
  • Comment - Vidovler (talk · contribs) and Monte Melkonian (talk · contribs) are checkuser confirmed to be unrelated to each other: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aram-van, at least technically. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checkuser does not ever disprove sock puppetry. The "unrelated" tag is a misnomer. It should say "no technical evidence". Jehochman Talk 19:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is true that "confirmed" and "unrelated" refer only to the strength of the IP-related evidence, and not the actual claim of sockpuppetry. By the same token, though, it is wrong to say that "unrelated" means there is no technical evidence. We have an "inconclusive" tag for that. An "unrelated" determination means that the evidence indicates that the accounts are not the same; simplified, the IPs are unrelated. There might be other overriding confirming evidence not involving the IPs, just as in a confirmed case, there might be disconfirming non-technical evidence, but that doesn't mean that there is a lack of technical evidence. Dominic·t 06:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps a further clarification would do, like "editing from other sides of the world, not via proxy." That might clarify the problem so there is no "the user traveled for 20 hours and edited from another computer." Of course, it might be a privacy violation (Monte Melkonian has been quite clear he wants as little divulged about his location as possible). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think something is going on here. Endorsing for clarification. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that Mov25 is the currently-blocked MosMusy. Also  Confirmed Sarmatai is the topic-banned Xebulon. Dominic·t 06:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with all these accounts. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking this as closed then. Note that Sandstein has extended Xebulon's topic ban to indefinite. Amalthea 14:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17 May 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

After seeing persistent tries of the User:MosMusy to add his POV map in the article on Azerbaijan on 17 May, I conducted a quick research. Turns out his previous sock account Mov25 was blocked for an indefinite time, however, his principal account MosMusy was overlooked. I am not sure which account is principal or sock, but this person looks like a determined sockpuppet master trying to evade his block. Here are Mov25's OR and POV edits in Azerbaijan article without any sources:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40] (reverted by admin [41])
  4. [42] (reverts again) (followed by undoing by admin [43])
  5. [44] (inserts his POV map to prevent the Azerbaijan from being seen as part of Europe. Northern and northeastern parts of Azerbaijan are geographically located in Europe where the Greater Caucasus mountain range sets the boundaries between Asia and Europe: [45])

After he's blocked on 8 April, he comes back on 11 April as MosMusy evading his block and reverting to his POV version again: [46]

As a reminder MosMusy has previously vandalized the page Azerbaijan with his POV and insertion of flags, maps unrelated to Azerbaijan and nationalism-inspired text such as this: after Azerbaijan suffered a humiliating defeat and its army was destroyed by the under-resourced and fewer Nagorno-Karabakh freedom fighters. Azeris are humiliated to this day by the defeat and the fact that the whole Muslim and western world supported them with Chechen and afghan mercenaries but they still lost humiliatingly. Karabakh will never be part of Azerbaijan because it is protect by The Republic of Armenia, Russia, and Iran.. Please see this POV edit, for example: [47].

You can also look at this previous edit, inspired by nationalism with insertion of Armenian flag and coat of arms in the article [48], followed by these nationalistic edits again [49] and again [50]. The user obviously resides in Wikipedia to mess up articles, create sock accounts to mess up more and evade bans. This account by itself may as well be a sock of some established user. In any case, it is used to mess up the pages with POV. Please look through the evidence and take measures. Neftchi (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MosMusy is also making grand accusations by warning on Chipmunkdavis talkpage on to expect "nationalistic opposition " from Azerbaijanis. He has not even began the talk yet he makes such accusations towards the editors on Wikipedia of that ethnic group. Neftchi (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is that this user has extensively tried to push POV on Azerbaijan page with some sort of vandalism, he was blocked and started another sock account (Mov25) to push the same agenda - maps after which he was blocked for socking, and now he came back unblocked as MosMusy again doing the same thing - pushing POV on the same page Azerbaijan. I have been on Wikipedia for many years and my understanding was that if one account is found to be a sockpuppet account while the primary account is in block for whatever reason, the sock account gets blocked AND the primary account gets specific sanctions such as indefinite or timely topic ban, indefinite or timely block and so on. In the case of MosMusy nothing was done and with all the abundance of direct evidence he still gets away with it. How is this possible? Neftchi (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

This person has been edit warring to push his POV for a long time. First he wanted to push the map of Armenia to show it as a part of Europe, which is not. Armenia geographically is not located in Europe. Azerbaijan and Georgia are by having their northeeastern and northern parts in Europe through geographical division by Greater Caucasus mountain ranges. Look at his comments to administrators preventing his POV on Armenia page: [51], [52] (assume good faith?), [53] (this diff shows he just wants to draw Azerbaijan and Georgia out too just because Armenia is not in Europe), [54], [55], [56], and these after he's being blocked for edit warring [57], [58], [59]. The person opened account Mov25 to do things he was blocked when doing as MosMusy, then he was blocked and now he came back with evasion of his blocked account Mov25 and he tries to do the same thing. Dighapet (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Is this user the blocked user Meowy? [60] or not? Dighapet (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Shouldn't you be presenting evidence to support the case that this editor is using a sockpuppeting and thus gaming the system instead of making a case to punish this editor for his past content edits? The agitation for the latter couldn't be any more clearer.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has used so many sock puppets in the past that honestly its no surprise people get confused. Dighapet makes a good point, is this editor Meowy? Because he was mentioned in the Meowy investigation and he certainly writes and edits in the same style? Neftchi (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

 Confirmed matches. TNXMan 21:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

I have a reason to believe that the reported editor is a sockpuppet of Meowy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Aregakn started two months before Meowy was blocked, but his editing behavior with sporadic edits, especially ones where he posts a comments and then re-edits his talk page contributions (typo fixing, rewording, re-adding signature because he forgot or because the bot did it for him, etc), strongly suggest this is the same user. The same behavioral pattern of edits in articles and talk pages have been observed in edits of his socks as well: Tamamtamamtamam blocked on Sep 16, 2009, Magotteers who was blocked on Nov 21, 2010, the IP - 93.97.143.19 he was using, which he later turned into account name Scribblescribblescribble and was at the end blocked when evidence was found in the February 2011 SPI, his Ionidasz account which he confirmed was his account when he was acting as Magoteers. More to add, his Ionidasz and Aregakn accounts stopped editing around the same time after a months long history.

Take a look at this request to comment on Aregakn's talk page and the IP 93.97.143.19 commented accordingly, which Aregakn removed today.

By the way, it's interesting that the first time his IP 93.97.143.19 was reported in January SPI, it failed to find the connection for some reason but in February one when the evidence has been exhibited in exact diff, it was proven it is the same Meowy who has been evading his block. In all cases Meowy was adamant "he was not a sock of Meowy" which has always been proven otherwise. Please check thoroughly. Neftchi (talk) 20:08, 13 June 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
27 June 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

While it is established that IP 93.97.143.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the IP of the banned user Meowy, another account Kafka Liz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resurfaced as one making edits on AA articles, even though he's never shown any interest in Karabakh related articles. Why all of a sudden? Because it is either someone puppeting and ducking for Meowy (see proof about exchange here on an unrelated subject [61]) or it is Meowy himself not editing in the topic area but gradually entering it. He has already done that in the past with his RobertMel editor account which seems, was proved and established by the SPI on Meowy from January. Something is very suspicious. Please check. IP of Meowy should be blocked to prevent continuous socking... Neftchi (talk) 15:29, 27 June 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
  • information Administrator note - I've blocked the IP for 6 months. Kafka Liz has been around for years with no substantive blocks her (his?) history, so I really doubt that user is Meowy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk declined - After a fair amount of thought, I'm going to decline this one. After looking at past cases, as well as this one and their editing history, I don't think it's likely that Kafka Liz = Meowy. I'll also note that the account that would be checked if a checkuser were to go through, is MosMusy (talk · contribs), but I'm just not seeing enough evidence here to warrant a checkuser. The account has been active for many years, and while newer than the Meowy account by almost a year, would either mean one of two things a) Kafka Liz has been a long time account of Meowy, that has only recently after four years started editing Karabakh articles, or b) They've decided to explore a different area. If another clerk feels otherwise feel free to overrule here, but I'm just not seeing a sufficient connection to warrant any action here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking this as closed, no action taken, per Steven. –MuZemike 22:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
07 September 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

The user Yerevanci started not very long time ago, on 27 August and seems to be experienced user. All patterns of his edits seem like edits by blocked Meowy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Many articles which User:Yerevanci began editing as soon as he came to Wikipedia are articles which Meowy edited in the past. For example:

1) the article on Whole Azerbaijan, which Meowy was interested in the past [62], [63], [64], especially the image (map) of Azerbaijan [65]. Here, Yerevanci restores the map [66] in the same article.

2) In the article Six vilayets, Meowy is involved with the name [67], and makes specific edits adding "six Armenian vilayets" [68]. Now, look what Yerevanci does [69] redirecting to the name suggested by Meowy.

3) In the article Northern Artsakh, Meowy makes edits [70], [71], [72] with POV text. The article was directed and merged to correct Gardman article, but Meowy who opposed it before now reverted and added text (from Armenian websites only) [73] . I reverted him to the version by administrator Betacommand, but he again reverted to POV version [74] with nationalist comment "why don't you redirect it??? wtf what kind of anti-Armenianism is this??? please do your work". And then he made more edits like this [75].

4) Next article is Nakhchivan which Meowy looks like was very active in: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]. As soon as Yerevanci began editing, he made this POV edit [87] too.

5) Another interest for these two users is Greater Armenia (political concept). Edits by Meowy: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]. Edits by Yerevanci: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100] (deleting large text), [101], [102], [103].  

The edit pattern looks very similar. It is also worth mentioning that the same editing pattern was from Bars77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was found sockpuppet of Xebulon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't know if Meowy is Xebulon, but editing patterns between three users match. After Meowy was blocked he used many sockpuppets and they were blocked. The same was seen with Xebulon. Yerevanci also acts like Xebulon because he knows soon he will be found as sockpuppet and tries to make as much POV as he can. Please take this evidence and see if these users are connected.     Dighapet (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, see I was right these are bunch of sockpuppets. I also think Hovik95 can be the same blocked Aram-van. Look at the same edits they made: [104] and [105]. They use also the same language and way of editing. Dighapet (talk) 22:03, 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.

The reporting user did not notify User:Yerevanci of this investigation, so I took the liberty of doing so. Here is his response, copied from my talkpage:

"So yeah thank you for informing me abotu this case. My previous account was Hovik95, but now I don't use it anymore, because I lost my password and email. So I creates a new one. Is there something wrong with it??? --Yerevanci (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)"

It would seem that there is nothing shady going on between these two accounts. By the user's own admission, they are both his, but one is no longer able to be used. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, password are always recovered and the instructions are self-explanatory, however it's not so hard to see who this Hovik95 and Yerevanci are. It's the same person perhaps operating the other accounts Bars77, Vadorenfm and Gorzaim from the same area. See this admission by proven socks of Meowy who always confirm they forget their passwords: [106]. So, where is new for us to learn about person and people abusing and gaming Wikipedia policies and juggling with IPs? Neftchi (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bars77 is blocked as a sock of User:Xebulon, not User:Meowy. The language differences between Vandorenfm and Yerevanci are fairly evident; I would be shocked if they turned out to be the same person.
You seem to believe that everyone who opposes you must be the same person, and use the fact that there have been confirmed sockpuppeteers to justify this belief. But all I see here is a typical nationalist POV-war, with offences on both sides. For example, using dishonest, false edit summaries 1 2, creating a disruptive ANI report after failing to even warn the user once 1, and trying to pre-empt this unresolved SPI 1 2.
Maybe my defence of Yerevanci will come out to be on the wrong side of things. But I will not retreat from my stance here. Trampling WP:AGF and trying to underhandedly manipulate results and opinion in your favour are totally unacceptable and should be made subject to scrutiny as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lothar von Richthofen for defending the justice. So can't you just check the IPS and see that Hovik95 and me are the same person. I just don't wanna use Hovik95. That's all. Just because I'm editing articles about Azerbaijan Neftchi gets angry. That's OK. You just have to understand that Turks don't like to accept their mistakes, that's all. If you see I also added the ethnic makeup table of Yerevan that shows that Yerevan was inhabited by Azeris in 19th century, but still, they pretend not to see it. They only see that I added a table which shows that many Armenians lived in Nakhichevan and Northern Artsakh and they can't do anything against it, because I have added neutal sources. So thank you again. --Yerevanci (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were like five different attempts to "prove" that I am someone else, and all of them were dismissed. Here is one example [107]. Users like Dighapet who file these endless SPIs should finally be held accountable for disruption since they do nothing but editwarring and shopping for blocks of accounts of their adversaries on untrue pretenses and made-up claims. Vandorenfm (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar my edits were done with good faith, unlike Yerevanci who just said "Turks don't like to accept their mistakes" - not only is that is a racist comment but also a personal attack. Do I have to mention that is against Wiki regulations? This all does not take away the fact that Yerevanci shows the typical Meowy excuses and similarities like how he regularly forgets his password. If Yerevanci speaks the truth then why didnt he mention that it was his alternative account for Wiki? I also support the position of EdJohnston. Any sock of indef blocked Hetoum 1 must be appropriately dealt with, that is indef block. Neftchi (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"my edits were done with good faith" - really?? How whould you explain deleting the ethnic tables of Nakhichevan and Ganja??? If you can accept your mistakes, then go to the talk page and prove that something's wrong.

"not only is that is a racist comment but also a personal attack" - racist??? look at your edits. almost all of them are associated with Armenians and are being anti-Armenian. If you look at my edits, I give neutral sources, but either way you delee it. Isn't this racist???--Yerevanci (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "good faith" in declaring someone a sock before the investigation is even closed. That is "guilty before proven innocent" thinking, and is pretty much by definition bad faith. Quit playing the victim. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically impossible because of geographical reasons and server/provider related reasons that I am linked to someone's account. The geolocation tool can mislead in this case because I use a general server with several outlets in many areas. Vandorenfm (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jehochman changed block settings for User:Meowy with an expiry time of 1 year on 10 February 2011. User:Ali55te its first contribution was done on 11 February 2011. Was this a coincidence ? Takabeg (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see a note by Jdelanoy [108] who confirmed that he did not use Wikistalk because Wikistalk can produce misleading results. However, he claimed below that he used Wikistalk. Also about his comment [109] on "they geolocate to the same general area." What is "same general area"? I edit from a metropolitan area which is one of the largest in the world, with millions of users relying on one provider. This provider has thousands of migrating IPs. I think this is a coincidence which drew attention because a few editors gravitate to the same articles and topics. But this is normal. If someone is interested in the topic of Nagorno-Karabakh, he/she is naturally involved in the articles on Shusha, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Nagorno-Karabakh War, Caucasian Albania because all of them are key sub-topics for Nagorno-Karabakh. Please note that User:Hetoum I, User:Bars77 or User:Gorzaim were never involved in two large articles that I authored and edited almost alone - Nor Varagavank and Hovhannes Imastaser. Vandorenfm (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody addded me to the suspected sockpuppets list after he was not able to push his POV to an article where I disproofed all of his arguments. You can look at the dicussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian_Genocide title is "personal explanaton". Similar event happened long time ago when an user was not able to push his POV on Duduk article he started a suckpoppet investigation. I want from administrators to start the checkuser process as soon as possible. After that I want this users rights on Armenia related articles to be restricted because trying to use enforcment when you don't agree on something can be the ugliest think in a scientific board.
This is the previous sockpuppet investigation started on my account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hetoum_I/Archive#07_March_2011 please notify the suddenly stop of edits from the accuser after the investigation. Ali55te (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Answer to Vandorenfm and Yerevanci  

Vandorenfm, it’s very shame, you don’t understand that it’s not only your geographical area, but it’s everything. You, Bars77 and Gorzaim edit the same articles, same editing and one edits after another stops, and one stops after another edits, and all your accounts appeared in Wikipedia and edited the same way, and where other blocked accounts left off. What coincidence? You can try very many times to say stories to other users, but administrators know better than you. Delanoy gave all details. It’s so enough to look at how many sockpuppets Hetoum I, Meowy, Aram-van and new sockpuppet or meatpuppet Xebulon used after they were blocked. I support blocking these users. They also always try to retaliate when they are reported. Look at their statements in this report and here [110] where they always try to take attention from them and direct to the people who reported them. Bad faith, Hetoum I. Dighapet (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been perusing old SPIs for Meowy and Xebulon, and have reached two new conclusions:
1. You like to fish.
2. Vandorenfm has been a suspect many times, but has never been conclusively shown to be related to anybody else.
Other than that, the rest of what I said in regards to the dispute stands: you and your associated edit mafiosi childishly play the victim while squawking about phantom sockpuppeteers in order to manipulate the system to your advantage. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lothar, stop your emotional language and open your eyes. If you looked and if any person looked at Meowy and Xebulon sockpuppet archive, they see how many proven sockpuppets they had, but still they have Lothar who so actively defends proved sock masters. Look at section below. The administrators say who the sockpuppets are and you come and post emotional absurd message. Funny. I don't fish. When I filed SPI reports many sockpuppets were found, all with evidence. What's the reason you defend them so much? Maybe you just seat down and wait for administrators results. Dighapet (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most salient example of your fishing is here, which was even determined by administrators to be a fishing attempt. Also, the fact that Vandorenfm has been put on trial so many times and never found to be anyone's sock I find suspicious. It'd take more than a " Likely" to convince me.
Re "actively defends proved sock masters":You prove my point. I've seen this happen in every nationalist POV-war I have come across. One side has a few users mixed up in shady dealings, and then everyone on the opposing side rushes to try and link all other opponents to them. Sure, some users are bound to be part of it, but when it becomes standard recourse to put every user through SPI, then there's a problem.
Why do I defend them? See the diffs I provided above. I added the page Ganja, Azerbaijan to my watchlist months ago with the idea that I'd be able to revert some "lol weed iz gud"-type vandalism now and then. One day I see that User:Yerevanci has added some demographic tables to the article. Nothing wrong there. Then I find that User:NovaSkola has Twinkled them away with the reason "vandalism". I revert this as clearly disruptive. Looking at his contributions, I find that he has pulled the same stunt at Nakhchivan to a similar good-faith edit by Yerevanci. I revert again. What's more, he filed an ANI report without so much as providing even a single warning to Yerevanci. The report was summarily removed as improper and baseless. Some days later, User:Neftchi places a notice on my talkpage that Yerevanci is a sock, linking me to this report. I find that Yerevanci has quite clearly not been confirmed as a sock, and I revert Neftchi's baseless reversions of Yerevanci's tables on the aforementioned articles. By this point, I have become very annoyed by what I see as WP:GAMING on y'all's part. That brings me to my current defence of the users. Maybe some or all of them will be found to be socks, I don't know. I also don't care; even war criminals get defence attorneys. But I'm not going to let manipulation such as y'all's slide by without shining a spotlight on it for at least some time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not fishing. Fishing is baseless trying to take users to sockpuppet investigations. For those users in this report, I reported Vandorenfm, Gorzaim, Vidovler and MarshallBagramyan, which they always come to help to. Vandorenfm and Gorzaim are also suspected by EdJohnston and Delanoy below, who are admins. Look below and you will understand that it was not baseless. Vidovler was once blocked and for good reason by Helloannyoung. Admins know better than you probably. And look at Vidovler [111] contributions. These users are created to do something for some time and then leave, other users come and continue their editing. Very easy to understand. You call this [112] edit by Yerevanci a good faith edit? No source just based on nationalistic feelings?

I know “Likely” can not convince you probably, but it shows that these users are likely to be connected because admins have tools that we do not have. It’s funny and irony that you speak about WP:GAMING when the people who practise that gaming are the people who are reported in this report. You compare to war criminals and I’ll compare the situation to every day criminals. When one criminals or gang leader does a crime and is in prison, and then when he continues crimes, police will always suspect him first and in many cases the same criminals are catched. Same here, sock masters continue socking and always get noticed and discovered. Dighapet (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)  [reply]

  • NOTE Dear admins, because the sockpuppets 2492BC and Vandorenfm were found and blocked, can you continue investigation on Gorzaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who began editing the same Nagorno-Karabakh article suddenly after Vandorenfm was blocked. Because Delanoy gave good analysis of user agents and other info on Vandorenfm and Gorzaim, I am not surprised that Gorzaim came to edit after one month "break" (his last edit was on 15 August and now after Vandorenfm was blocked, he's back on 15 September. [113]. He made 14 edits of same nature: [114].
  • Also, Yerevanci and Hovik95 as I already mentioned are very similar to Meowy’s behaviour because he always plays with IP’s and then says he forgot password. He did the same with Iodanicz and Magoteers account and explained the same way [115]. Even Hovik’s earliest and first contributions which began with same type of professional edits confirm the evidence. Dighapet (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

I cannot tell if any of these accounts are related to Meowy, but I think it is  Unlikely that Yerevanci (talk · contribs) and Bars77 (talk · contribs) are related. However, it is  Likely that Hovik95 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is related to Yerivanci (see Hovik's deleted edits for recent activity). Still, even if it is related, it appears that the Hovik account has been abandoned, so I don't know if it is worth it to pursue that.

On a more interesting note, at least to me, Bars77 apparently started right back up where he left off, with Vandorenfm (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). This account made edits from the same IP as Bars77, starting only 20 minutes after the autoblock expired. 30 minutes after that, he began revert-warring on the same page that Bars77 was before he got blocked. I am only giving this much information because the Vandorenfm account has been around for much longer than the Bars77 one has. I at first was not sure if I should say that these accounts are related, but all of the above happening with two users on the same IP address and with the same user agent just seemed way too much to be a coincidence. J.delanoygabsadds 05:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely. He edits from different ISPs, but they geolocate to the same general area. There are many overlaps with user agents as well. J.delanoygabsadds 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23 September 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

This sockpuppet completely removed a well sourced text in here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenia_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations&curid=15961619&diff=451924399&oldid=443459702

and he is the sock of Meowy. His previous sock was blocked because he socked when this account was blocked. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meowy/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments_4 NovaSkola (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

The SPI that you cite states that MosMusy is the same as Mov25. This has been well established in the past (see also here). No solid connection was ever established to Meowy owing to the fact that the account is stale: "Sorry, I moved the case and it probally [sic] caused issues. This confirms Mov25 = MosMusy. This also confirms Mov25 = MosMusy. That is all that has been checked, and all that is checkable." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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


Here we go again. The resurrection of Meowy with new simultaneous accounts. Please see InTheRevolution2 account along with identically named accounts Winterbliss and Winter Gaze. The first was created a few weeks earlier and the last two were created during the same period of time with difference of two days. If you take a look at the timelines of their edit history, you will come to conclusion that the puppeteer is using these three accounts to edit on the same subjects (or to invest into one or two accounts to create contribution history to heavily edit from them later in case the third account will be blocked), perhaps, with an internet access being used from two or three close locations. Let's see some examples on the same days:


  • InTheRevolution2 registers at 22:12 on November 8 and edits on various subjects until November 21 building himself a short contribution history
  • Winterbliss registers at 3:19 on November 19 and makes several edits until 3:28. On November 21, he edit until 4:26 and stops.
  • Winter Gaze registers at 11:19 on November 21 and makes several edits until 15:00


  • Winterbliss edits on November 22 from 01:07 until 01:11
  • InTheRevolution2 picks up by making an edit at 05:17
  • WinterGaze picks up on the same day from 13:16 until 18:17


  • Winterbliss edits on November 24, from 04:02 until 04:14
  • Winter Gaze picks up the activity from 05:50 until 20:37
  • InTheRevolution2 picks up at 21:50 through 21:55


  • Winter Gaze then edits heavily on unrelated to Azerbaijan-Armenia subjects until December 3, 22:30
  • InTheRevolution2 makes edits from 20:12 and 20:14
  • Winterbliss picks up after a long recess on December 4, from 18:18 until 18:22


  • Winterbliss goes on (while WinterGaze and InTheRevolution2 have stopped or significantly decreased their activity, most probably because they think they built up some contribution history for admins to see) edit warring on December 12, from 04:32 until 04:41

All three accounts have made edits related to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijan/Armenia such as [116], [117], [118], [119], [120]. The bottom line is that these three accounts were created with the purpose of evading the block of Meowy and edit-warring on AA2-related subjects. The plan evidently is to create as many sock accounts, make minor edits (all their edits are minor such as adding/removing categories, fixing typos, adding/removing one or two sentences) from them on AA2-unrelated subjects thus creating an impression that these are genuine accounts when and if admins look at them (like now) and then start alternating these accounts while edit-warring. It's very obvious that Winterbliss is the first account used to edit war and if it were to be reported or indefinitely blocked, WinterGaze and/or InTheRevolution would step in to continue.

There are also two elements of suspicious behavior by these accounts resembling Meowy and his socks:

Suspicious behavior 1

Take a look at his first edit on his page saying that he forgot his password to his previous account InTheRevolution which made only three edits in his lifetime, apparently trying to mislead other editors disguising the fact that he's actually a new account. For a comparison, please see the same behavior exhibited by Meowy's blocked sock, Magotteers who always forgets his passwords.

Suspicious behavior 2

An account RobertMel had been previously found related to Meowy and his sock Magoteers on January 3. If we look at short editing activity of RobertMel, we will see that he edited on the same subjects as these socks such as biochemistry or biology. Please compare with [121].

Suspicious behavior 3

I added Kafka Liz who had been reported once under Meowy but declined. However, with new evidence, it is clear that he is either a sock or a duck editing on behalf of Meowy. Please see this message from MarshallBagramyan, apparently in an off-Wiki coordination.

Please consider taking a look at these accounts based on the above evidence. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kafka Liz, your name is being mentioned for the abovementioned reasons. Whether your claim that you are in contact with Meowy specifically on issues unrelated to Armenia or Wikipedia is irrelevant. What's relevant and raises suspicion is that you had been editing on same subjects Meowy has when he was active and through his sockpuppets when he was blocked, and that you're being contacted through Wikipedia on allegedly "Wikipedia unrelated" subjects. As mentioned above, an account Robert Mel was editing seemingly unrelated to Armenia articles, but did edit in support of Meowy's main account when it was needed and his IP was linked to that of Meowy's. But the point is that there is something going on behind the scenes with MarshallBagramyan communicating with one of the major violators and puppeteers off-Wiki, while editing on the same subjects. Coincidence? Long friendship? Well, that remains for administrators to decide. For now, the CU is needed to find out if the accounts are operated by the same person and if one ducks for the other. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note

HelloAnnyong and William H, thanks for checking the users. I understand the first three are not technically interrelated, but are any of them related to these puppeteers: Hetoum I, Xebulon, Paligun, Andranikpasha? The reason I ask is because these are frequent comebacks with either new accounts or IPs.

Gentlemen, Kafka Liz may not be a sock but the account has been in the same "battlefields" with Meowy during the same timeframes and with the same type of edits on close 60 articles. If needed, I can provide diffs. And the suspicion arose when, as I had mentioned above, it became evident that Meowy communicates off-wiki with Kafka Liz and MarshallBagramyan. No one would question any off-wiki communication if the subject of their edits were non-controversial but since they pertain to AA2, it's worth looking into it. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

I'm not precisely sure why my name has been included here. MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs) alerted me to the existence of this thread. I seldom edit Armenian articles, and I don't believe I've ever edited Nagorno-Karabakh, although I do sometimes work on certain Turkey-related articles. I have corresponded with Meowy (talk · contribs), but on a personal matter related neither to Armenia nor Wikipedia. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tuscumbia: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see Kafka Liz being a sock. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "are any of them related to these puppeteers": Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other than "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people", then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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


First off, although the SPI check seems to have not been affirmative about Yerevanci being Meowy, I am filing it under Meowy since his two other socks User:Mov25 and MosMusy were found related. The evidence derives from the similarities in POV pushing of these two accounts in specific fields such as maps. In his first edits, MosMusy simply vandalized the pages by replacing Azerbaijani flags, coat of arms and maps with Armenian ([122], [123], [124]). His later re-appearance on the article Azerbaijan included replacing maps [125] with the POV one he created himself to highlight the separatist regime within the borders of Azerbaijan. The push for display of "de-facto independent state" was both practised by MosMusy[126], [127], [128], [129], his sock Mov25 [130], [131] (here he just displays the map created by the master account MosMusy), and Yerevanci: [132], [133].

Yerevanci has been recently adding maps he created [134], [135], [136], [137].

Both seem to be proficient in Photoshop or whichever tool they use to create maps; both forget to leave edit summaries most of the time (eg. [138], [139], [140], [141], or [142], [143], [144], [145], [146] and both have not mentioned their usage of alternative accounts (socks?) until found related: [147] (found related to User:MosMusy) and [148] (found related to Hovik95).

It's unclear whether it is Meowy who operates these accounts or not, but the similarities in specific articles, editing patterns and behavior are abundant. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar von Richthofen, please do assume good faith and refrain from insulting comments. The evidence was presented, the user checked. Given the rich history of Meowy's sockpuppeteering, any similar behavior is to be reported. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:26, 11 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

Red X Unrelated to MosMusy and the others are stale. — Coren (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for close. For future reference, I will remove insulting remarks without comment. TNXMan 19:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10 May 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

The first IP just changed the text [149] back to Meowy's edits, literally minutes after being warned by the mediator. They also share edits to the page of a particular user - [150], [151].

Wikiboer for his part has been similarly visiting the Khojaly Massacre page in the past months [152], just like Meowy [153], who apparently has already been been placed under some kind of restrictions on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. They also extensively edit Nagorno-Karabakh article and forum, there are just too many to cite.

The two users also show interest in Assyrians and subjects like genocide. Wikiboer edited Assyrian Genocide talk page [154], [155]. So did Meowy, [156].

Lastly, they all share the same confrontational attitude and try to bring Armenia/Armenian origins of various things to the pages, regardless their factual merits. Meowy insists on the talk:Georgian Orthodox Church that it originated from the Armenian church. Wikiboer has similarly insisted that the site of the Georgian Orthodox Sameba Cathedral is of Armenian origin and built on top of Armenian graves[157]. He champions the "pro-Armenian" cause also on the Tbilisi page, with equally confrontational edit summaries [158]. Krosenstern (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Meowy is being accused of stalking by me and at least another user - [159] [160]- and he is also warned about Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, I think this is all worth checking out.

UPDATE I just added user:rast5 because Meowy suddenly continued a name dispute on George Balanchine page started by blocked user Rast5 last year. Again, in this case we are also dealing with a dispute over one's Georgian origin, just like in case of Sameba Cathedral construction grounds and the Georgian Orthodox Church.--Krosenstern (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

For the record, Wikiboer was run through a checkuser earlier this year and found to be clean. The IP, though, shows up numerous times in the archive and has been blocked thrice before for being used as a sock. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This may end up being a more complexed case than people may think. Meowy isn't just appearing to be possibly "hiding" under an IP to make controversial edits. Twice now, Meowy has shown clear signs of stalking myself, by posting comments on two talk pages that I have recently posted on. Seeing has he has had no previous interactions on either pages, then it is clear he's searched my contribution history and check where I have been posting. diff 1; and diff 2. Not sure if they would need ANI handling though. Wesley☀Mouse 19:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wesleymouse is showing blatant bad faith here and is abusing the sockpuppet investigation process. I made an edit without signing in (or rather, my account timed out without me knowing it) and I have said in the article's talk page that the edit was mine [161]. However, as a result of that single edit wesleymouse has made the above accusation and has also encouraged Krosenstern, an editor with a mere three days membership to his name (and that, ironically, Wesleymouse had also accused of being a sockpuppet [162]), to initiate this case of sockpuppetry. Wesleymouse actually provided him with links to the appropriate spi pages [163]. Krosenstern thanks Wesleymouse here [164]. Wesleymouse has also been pursuing what seems to be a vendetta against me, posting critical comments on other users pages and attempting to gather support. Wesleymouse also prompted Krosenstern to investigate stalking [165], having earlier falsely accused me of stalking GeorgianJorjadze after I edited the talk page at Template:History of Georgia. I was actually invited there by another editor via my talk page [166], that other editor further confirms it here: [167]. Yet Wesleymouse, despite being obviously wrong, encouraged Krosenstern to repeat those stalking allegations. Krosenstern obviously can't be accusing me of stalking him, because he has edited only the one article, an article I had been editing before he joined, so he must also be refering to GeorgianJorjadze. Meowy 19:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously! Accounts don't get "timed out", not unless you "log out". Krosenstern asked another user where to submit this report, and I replied back to him - seeing as Krosenstern is new, it was right to answer his question. He said thank you, as a sign of appreciation in helping him - is that a crime now? You then comment on 2 talk pages that I had just momentarily commented on. Pages of which, you have had no prior interactions with, so to know that I had been on them, you had to have checked my contribs in a purpose stalking manner. I have had no vendetta against you. If anyone has its been you towards me, by accusing me of somehow trying to "race my way to admin" and "improving my admin application". I have never applied for RfA, not do I intend to be doing any time in the near future. If anyone would like to see a full diff account which would show the correct time-frame of events, then feel free to ask me for them. Wesley☀Mouse 20:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you are actually claiming that a new editor, one all of three days old, with experience of editing just one article, and after only 13 posts to his name, took it upon himself to pursue sockpuppety and stalking allegations? Meowy 20:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an expert here (or is there suitable section where I can ask the question) that will confirm that Wikipedia accounts do not stay signed in forever. The page was loaded, them after leaving it untouched for about an hour or so, I edited it while my name was still appearing at the top right of the page. However, when the edit had been made, I discovered that I was no longer signed in. Meowy 20:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was Krosenstern who accused you of stalking GeorgianJorjadze first, the chronological order of events prove this. It had been established that I hastily thought Krosenstern of being a sock, but I struck out my accusation afterwards (which is the civil way to do things when retracting a false accusation). I further went on to post a letter of apology for the accusation, which has been accepted. Krosenstern, was also the first person to notice the above IP (which you have since admitted as being your own) doing a controversial revert; as his comment to you on the article talk page was posted several minutes before I had even realised the IP edit made. The history pages are date stamped (thankfully) for a reason, to show exactly who did/said what first. As Kros is new, he didn't know the procedures of who to report suspicions to, and like any other editor would do, I provided a list of places for him to go to - in hindsight probably not the best thing to have done. Anyhow could you be so kind as to cease further interactions with myself from now on (with exception for the DR case whenever that opens). Wesley☀Mouse 20:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And as Drmies told you "Meowy is not currently blocked (so) the IP is not, technically, a sock. If an IP is used to avoid scrutiny in edit-warring that's another matter, but since Meowy makes no secret of the IP, and users can get logged out, I don't see the illegality of it.". I think your purpose here is to make mischief, you saw a chance to get at an editor who was causing you inconvenience, and it is an abuse of sockpuppetry detection processes. Krosenstern is mostly innocent because you encouraged him to pursue this action, and a new editor can't be expected to know better. Meowy 21:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update Well, as usual, Meowy completely ignores the evidence pressed upon him and instead seems to accuse Wesley of controlling my account, which is a distraction. Feel free to run a check and see if I have anything to do with his account. I have the right to receive his advice, especially when you are so eager to run over newcomers with hostility that you have shown to me on the Georgian Orthodox Church page.--Krosenstern (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioural evidence provided by Krosenstern can hardly be called "evidence" at all. Users on a particular side of a polarising ethnic dispute have similar POVs and edit similar articles? What an utter shock! Alert the authorities!

On a more serious note, I ran the users listed through wikichecker: Meowy Wikiboer Rast5. The results aren't convincing. None of the accounts' editing patterns are really very similar to each other—Meowy would have to be up 24 hours a day to operate the Wikiboer account. Furthermore, Meowy and Gazifikator (the sockmaster for Rast5) have completely different editing patterns. I think it extremely unlikely that any of the accounts are the same person, but the link between Meowy and Rast5 is essentially none, as far as I can tell.

I'd also like to remind the submitter that he has not shown the courtesy of notifying Wikiboer of this investigation and should do so. It is rude to leave parties in the dark about things like this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot accept what you are saying about editing times, i.e. that he "would have to be up 24 hours a day". As you can see on the wikichecker, Wikiboer does in fact have edits across the 24 hour period as shown under "edits by hour". I don't know when he sleeps but with this level of obsession, I'm not sure he thinks he needs to sleep at all.
As for him previously coming clean, well there are devices that can hide IP's so depending how sophisticated the user is, it should not be difficult to do.
I also do not appreciate you trying to be witty with me. I do realize that in disputes there can be more than one user of the same side but when there is interest in so many similar pages, including the Assyrians and their genocide, I think it is justified. After all, we are not here to sentence Meowy to anything, the whole point of being here is to check.
Lastly, it amazes me how you can discount my evidence so hastily when this user has had so many accusations leveled against him in the past years, including having proven zombie accounts which were blocked. Are we all going insane?--Krosenstern (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that it would be really stupid of Meowy to sock after being blocked for a year because of it. He may be POV-motivated, but I don't think he's that dim.
Additionally, while he has had a number of socks, it has also been "in vogue" in this topic area to try and bully new users on a particular side with SPIs.
And I'm "witty" with everyone, sweetheart. It's not just for you ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)
When I first showed up on the Georgian Orthodox Church page, I was accused of being another user's sock and Meowy repeated the same accusation on this very page, now in regards to Wesley. So, yes, I know what it means to intimidate new users with such accusations.--Krosenstern (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Krosenstern. I think you are now reaching the stage where you can be expected to know better. Meowy 01:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a note on Wikiboer's talk page informing him of this. Not only did Krosenstern not tell Wikiboer about this investigation, he did not tell me about it. If I had not been looking at the edits that wesleymouse had made (or, in his words "stalking him") I would not have known about this discussion. Meowy 12:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meowy, your obvious stalking of Wesley made me think that you would not need an invitation to show up. I got that right and I am glad I did not waste a minute of my life writing that note for you;you have already wasted so much of my time.--Krosenstern (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Krosenstern, you have now passed the stage where you can be expected to know better - so lapses of acceptable behaviour could result in sanctions. Continuing these accusations of "stalking" will get you into trouble, as will ignoring Wikipedia requirements to properly notify editors (even when you consider it a "waste of time"). Meowy 16:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

First of all, Rast5 is  Stale and thus has no technical data available for comparison. Secondly, checkusers generally do not disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. So that leaves us with Wikiboer and Meowy. Leaving aside all of the petty bickering, I don't see any concrete evidence that these accounts are operated by the same person. What I do see is two accounts that share a general interest in this topic area -and judging by the comments above, it's a pretty popular/contentious topic. Unless you can demonstrate more than a shared interest in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, I'll mark this for close later today. TNXMan 15:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for close. TNXMan 15:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
05 July 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


On 29 June 2012 Meowy was blocked for 1 week for the violation of editing restrictions: [168] The account of Dechrwr was created on July 1, 2012, only 1 day after Meowy was blocked. While Dechrwr has only 21 edits to date, wikistalk shows that he edits the same Armenia-Azerbaijan related pages that Meowy edited: [169] Out of 4 pages edited by Dechrwr 3 were previously edited by Meowy, of which Caucasian Albanian alphabet and Artsakh were very recently last edited by Meowy, after which the new account Dechrwr picked up where Meowy left off. Meowy is known to have used sock accounts many times before to evade his ban, which could be seen from his long blocks for sock puppetry, and the account of Dechrwr appears to be another similar attempt. Grandmaster 11:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is clearly someone who has edited before. Grandmaster 18:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Um, this is the first time I've ever edited anything in Wikipedia. I have only ever created one Wikipedia account...this one, Dechrwr. I spent a lot of time putting these sources in and cleaning up those articles. Sure, those are still not finished products, but I think you'd have to agree that those articles are in better shape now. Honestly, if my work gets deleted because of random suspicions, whatever. I do have better things to do with my time than update Wikipedia, which isn't helping me build a career.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dechrwr (talk • contribs)

Oh yeah, if you have any suggestions about how to make the table of Catholicoi I put into the "Church of Caucasian Albania" article at the end better, please let me know. You can email me at dechrwr-hotmail, and perhaps point me to another article with a more polished table, and I can use the .html-like source code from the Edit page on that other Wikipedia page to polish up the List of Catholicoi on the Church of Caucasian Albania page. What would be even more interesting would be if you could take a look at the Dowsett source I used for that table, read the article and the information in it, see how I presented it, and make suggestions for the table on the Wikipedia page or edit the table yourself. I tried to be minimal and not add anything, but the combination of sporadic specified years, and length of service for other catholicoi, could be analyzed to come up with a more detailed time line with exact years calculated from a thorough analysis of the information in that article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dechrwr (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, on the bright side, I guess I should feel like it's a compliment that you guys think I've edited before? Seriously, though, did GrandMaster bother to compare more than time-of-activity information? Did he bother to compare the substance of what I've contributed with the substance (or likely mostly lack thereof) of whoever it was in the past he is suspicious of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dechrwr (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I look at all the formating and referencing that you did at Church of Caucasian Albania, including the table that you mentioned, and clearly that is not something a new editor can do with his very first edit. I see nothing wrong with your editing so far, but considering all the socking in Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles that reached ridiculous proportions, I think it would be good if you revealed your previous accounts, or at least admitted that you are not a newbie and promised to abide by the rules. Unfortunately, because of all the socking we have to look with suspicion at every new account which starts editing in this contentious area. Grandmaster 21:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually, this is my first account, and my first time ever editing Wikipedia. Sorry to disappoint you dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dechrwr (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero programming skills. I've made two attempts in my life to use .html to make websites, neither of which was very impressive. This Wikipedia stuff is not difficult, though I'm sure there's much more for me to learn. I'm curious why you think that table is difficult. All I had to do was go to the auto-create table option from the top menu bar, see what it inserted, and copy and paste two lines within the code to make the appropriate number of lines and then fill in the blanks. If you think that's difficult, then either this Wikipedia code is really easy and I'm already near the top level of skill, or you also have much more to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dechrwr (talk • contribs) 03:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Thanks for the evidence. This account is editing from a different continent compared to Meowy. However, I'm reluctant to accept that it's a new user. WilliamH (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

28 August 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me but a cu might be able to verify that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 28 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 February 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

  1. Anakrakediler, like Meowy, is a WP:SPA that does nothing but make POV-pushing edits (not 100% of them incorrect, but uniformly performed in an editwarring, WP:GREATWRONGS manner) to Turkish/Armenian/Kurd articles, with a special, weird, focus on the Van cat article and its topical sibling, Turkish Van.
  2. The "both" of "them" are the two most active users on Van cat page, other than me cleaning up after them.[170]
  3. No one else stakes out the Van cat article in particular; it is not often edited, and disputes that pop up do not last long unless Meowy/Ankarakediler is involved.[171]
  4. Meowy/Ankarakediler habitually uses these articles as a WP:OWN playground, and tries to control every aspect of the pages, removing everything he/she disagrees with, regardless of sources. Here's Ankarakediler doing it: [172][173][174][175][176][177], etc. Meowy: [178][179]
  5. Deleting or mangling source citations to make material looks unsourced or improperly sourced, a weird, ineffective and highly unusual tactic. Ankarakediler: [180][181]. Meowy: [182]
  6. Claims that material the editor disagrees with is "propaganda", "controversial", "dubious", etc., without any evidence this is the case (and sometimes after deleting references the editor disagrees with, as noted above). Ankarakediler: [183]. Meowy: [184], and note especially hyperbolic misuse of "propaganda" again here, a malapropism of the word later echoed by Ankarakediler; it's the sort of mistake that strongly suggests a single user. See also recurrence of the term at User:Ankarakediler.
  7. Meowy was indef blocked in August of last year. Perhaps reflecting personal upset, Ankarakediler also became silent that month for some time, as Meowy habitually does when set upon, only to return in force to make the same kinds of disruptive edits, as Ankarakediler did and continues to do sporadically (most recently in late January).
  8. Ankarakediler declares at User:Ankarakediler an explicit, if concise, WP:GREATWRONGS agenda against "propaganda and misinterpretations"; it reads like a careful precis of Meowy's more over-the-top WP:NOTHERE anti-WP rant (see very bottom of this diff that (finally) led to the long-overdue indef block.
  9. Meowy's socking history is almost stunningly extensive, and the user's tendentiousness is extremely entrenched. The odds of this user magically going away just because an indef block was issued are pretty much zero. Some of the IP editors since then, like the now-blocked 76.21.179.213, have also likely been Meowy socks. Cf. the weird anti-ethnicity/nationality edit summaries: IP editor, followed by obvious sock edit shortly after that IP was blocked; Ankarakediler's version, and Meowy's earlier edits[185][186] of this sort.
  10. User:Ankarakediler claims a direct affiliation with a Turkish cat organization (website is down presently); Meowy posted photos taken at the only known organization of this sort, the Van Cat House a.k.a. Van Cat Research Center, at Yüzüncü Yıl University.[187][188]. Meowy provides various details about the place as if from persona knowledge (no source cited).[189]
  11. Re: 76.21.179.213 – See also other 76.* socks, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meowy/Archive#07 April 2011.
    — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

It is hard for me to accept that a sockmaster would be operating a sock that takes the opposite position on the AA quarrel. Meowy would generally favor the Armenian point of view in any disputes, and Ankarakediler the Turkish. It seems that User:Ankarakediler operates a web site about cats, whose name is given on his user page (See especially this informative page). His user name means 'Ankara cats' in Turkish (where 'Angora' comes from 'Ankara'). So it would not be a surprise for him to take an interest in the Van Cat article. He seems to think that the Van Cat is part of the Angora breed, and that all these cats originated in Eastern Anatolia. Cat motivations appear quite distinct from political motivations. This editor was in fact warned under ARBAA2 after some reverts at Armenian Genocide where he appeared not to want to use the word 'denial' for genocide denial. Ankarakediler is unlikely to be a sock of Meowy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. You must be understanding the political ranting better than I am, then. I've also only been following these users' "I own these cat articles" behavior, not what they're editwarring about at the genocide article, etc. Sorry for the false alarm. In the interim, I've issued Ankarakediler a level-four warning after various others have left many previous warnings, as the editor has been deleting sources, falsifying what sources actually say, tendentiously pushing a PoV, censoring mention of the Armenian genocide at the Van cat article, using WP to promote their own website, and otherwise being disruptive. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 06:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Hell freezing over is more likely than Meowy denying the Armenian genocide. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •  Clerk note: Especially given Ed's input, I am unconvinced this is likely to be Meowy. Even looking at just the evidence presented originally, there are sadly many completely independent editors with this same exact attitude. That said, his actions are certainly still disruptive, but just not in a socking sort of way. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Evidence doesn't seem to demonstrate a link between the two editors. Closing without prejudice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17 May 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

After Meowy was banned indefinetly on 27 August 2012, on 30 March 2014 Tiptoethrutheminefield registered editing exactly same areas. Both of them focus on Armenia related articles extensively, promoting Armenian POV, and on Eastern Europe related articles they both have pro-Russian attitude.

  • Here [190] [191] both of them editing the city of Quba and reduce the information on a mass grave where it is thought to be massacre of Azerbaijanis by Armenians.
  • Both of the users seem obsessed with Turkish spellings on Wikipedia. They replaced Turkish letter "ş" with "sh" on the page Mahmud Shevket Pasha with same edit summary: Meowy writing "this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Turkish language one" and Tiptoethrutheminefield "the correct spelling in English - this is not Turkish wikipedia".
  • Previous pattern can be seen on the page Iznik pottery as well [192][193].
  • A specific word "denial"by meowy and "deny"by Tiptoethrutheminefield inserted to page Bernard Lewis regarding his views on Armenian Genocide.

What makes the case more interesting is that in his talk page Tiptoethrutheminefield explains the series of events led to block of (user:Russavia) from September 2009 to another user stating the block was unfair. However, back in those days he was not on Wikipedia at all, Tiptoethrutheminefield registered on 30 March 2014. So clearly it seems he was on Wikipedia and involved with specific cases. Indeed, Meowy and Russavia were editing same areas in line with each other. For instance, the article “Georgia for Georgians” which mostly tries to justify separatist movements in Georgia and created with a pro-Russian manner by Russavia on 14 September 2008. Meowy collaborated with Russavia and edited the page several times [194] [195] [196] [197] [198]. Once both Meowy and Russavia blocked this time Tiptoethrutheminefield started to edit[199] page with exactly same attitude and after AFD nomination and delete result he kept it as a user draft see User:Tiptoethrutheminefield/Georgia for Georgians. Abbatai 18:56, 17 May 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

This case is   Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bbb23, I prefer to leave everything to you--I'm kind of busy making mint ice cream. Well, the individual diffs pointed out above are not entirely convincing to me, but the overlap is almost ridiculous, down to the ratios of edits to articles. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Clerk note: this has sat open too long, I imagine because the suspected sock was temporarily blocked two weeks after this case was filed, and CU-declined cases tend to languish anyway. However, the case presented is too strong to ignore. Meowy and Tiptoethrutheminefield overlap on 134 articles, not counting talk pages or pages in other namespaces, in an incredibly narrow range of topics.
Have a look at this discussion from Armenian Genocide: Meowy argues passionately for a certain contentious translation. Skip forward two years to another user starting another discussion objecting to this translation. Tiptoethrutheminefield's very first edits make very similar passionate arguments supporting the same translation, and also descend quickly into ad hominem style comments.
A few days later, TtttM finds Mahmud Shevket Pasha, moving it to this title due to objection over using a Turkish diacritic. Which, it so happens, is exactly the same rationale that Meowy indicated when moving the page to that same title five years earlier.
Along with the significant and specific topic overlap, these two editors share a distinctly combative debate style which is no doubt why they also share a block log a mile long for personal attacks and violating various restrictions, often one editor violating the same restriction that the other then violates years later. I also note that while this case's substantial archive is full of inconclusive and unrelated findings, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Meowy is not empty.
I'll be back shortly to amend this lengthy comment with a finding. @Bbb23 and Drmies: courtesy ping. Also please share your ice cream. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Blocked and tagged. Case closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector, the ice cream is all gone. I think part of what was happening is that I had this crazy influx of eggs at one point--like five dozen or so. At any rate, I'd all but forgotten about this. Funny, at one point I actually defended Meowy, and I've broken a lance for Tiptoe once or twice as well, besides blocking them once or twice of course. I always wonder what those socks are thinking while someone is chatting with them, someone who doesn't know they have a history together. Do they giggle inwardly? Do they feel guilty? Thanks for closing this. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meowy/Archive&oldid=1143400928"