Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations‎ | Iaaasi

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hobartimus (talk | contribs) at 13:29, 29 November 2011 (you are not allowed to edit already archived material). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Iaaasi

Iaaasi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
15 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:Iaaasi is one of the most disruptive mass sockpuppeteers with a large number of sockpuppets and well over 2000 sockpuppet edits[1]. User:Karpatia1 is a confirmed member in his sockpuppet army and User:Zzzsolt has very similar edits to that of Karpatia1. For example they both edited the article Gesta Hungarorum : Karpatia [2] and Zzsolt [3], and both of them contacted administrator Dougweller. Zzzsolt advised Dougweller to get some glasses [4] while Karpatia said this [5]. It is a common feature of this sockpuppeteer to repeatedly contact administrators trying to influence them often by lying or pretending to be a new editor seeking help. Zzzsolt's Hungarian name([6]) also fits into the sockpuppeteer's MO of pretending to be of another ethnicity other than Romanian. Previously he made others believe he was German with a German sounding name choice DerGelbeMann. [7] Hobartimus (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I ask the administrative action against user:Zzzsolt, blocking and tagging. Are you not convinced upon full analysis of the contributions that Zzzsolt is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi? Hobartimus (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info I will consider it a full confirmation of the socking then. Hobartimus (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed what happened here: A previous case filed against Zzzsolt [8] but it was dismissed. The reason for that is that Iaaasi lied to the administrators pretending to be a new user who "didn't know it was illegal to have 2 accounts", [9] so they simply dropped the case, without doing anything. This is something to note for future investigations, in the MO lying to admins to gain advantage, deceive and conceal the bigger disruptions. In fact it seems there was enough evidence in the old case for a block as well, but the admins were manipulated by the lie. Of course Iaaasi knew very well that he already once admitted the connection between Karpatia1 and Zzzsolt earlier... so the new admission on IRC, was nothing new it would seem. And the previous cases are somewhat difficult to notice when organized like this, a previous case [10] was filed under yet another name Umumu (where once again the case was dismissed at the time...) Hobartimus (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Even if they both are Iaaasi's socks (which the one definitely is his), Zzzsolt has not had an edit since July 2010; I fail to see any further necessary administrative action against Iaaasi. –MuZemike 22:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked with Iaaasi privately, and he has told me that Zzzsolt is his sock. I really don't care whether or not it's blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:Bborbely is a single issue throwaway sockpuppet, used for a total of 3 days only. Naming shows strong similarity to the earlier case of Zzzsolt, (use of Hungarian name to deceive, in addition he picked a name similar to the article attacked Balázs Borbély). After the attack period the sockpuppet is thrown away and never used again in order to avoid detection. The sockpuppet was used for harassment and the usual MO can be observed as in many other cases. As usual he tries to disguise the sockpuppet harassment pretending for it to be a content dispute. Then reporting the "content dispute" to various noticeboards and editors [11] [12] in this case with the same harassment sock. User:SlovenskýMuž is a similar case but attacking a different article this time. The throwaway sockpuppet is used for purely reverting the target of the harassment, and is disguised this time with a Slovak sounding name. The account is then thrown away and never used again. In the case of user:Bborbely we can observe a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi, (on the list as MartinMagera) making the exact same edit. [13] [14]. In the other case the article Košice was also edited by Iaaasi sockpuppets like Ddaann2 and Iaaasi as well [15] [16]. Because the same disruptive patterns are present in user:Iaaasi's edits recently as well, this case is even more relevant. A further indication of Iaaasi's socking on Kosice is that a few days after the edits of SlovenskýMuž, an IP appears from the confirmed IP range of Iaaasi and tries to urge user:Yopie [17] to "Keep an eye on Košice too" implying to continue the edit war of the sockpuppet Slovenskymuz. He also adds some incivility, which would have been blockable by itself at the time (if all the blocks, and disruption would be clearly listed on one account in a way that's easily reviewable it would be over 25 blocks, but because earlier conduct is hidden in a maze of IP and sock contributions it seems a false AGF was always given) Hobartimus (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask an administrator to review the evidence, the diffs, all the contributions of the suspected sockpuppets etc to draw conclusions. Iaaasi is presently blocked so I'm kind of puzzled by MuZemike's comment. If someone is already blocked a "block on Iaaasi" is of course unnecessary at this time. The most what could be done is an extension of the block. Hobartimus (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the evidence above shows more current diff's of Iaaasi from this month doing very similar things to that of the suspected sockpuppets on the same article as one of the socks. But I would go into this part in detail after a determination is made whether the suspected socks can be considered as socks. Hobartimus (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the previous case in the archives it ended with a full block of the offending account, as well as some valuable revelations to the extremely disruptive nature of this mass sockpuppeteer. I don't think other facts such as the inability of the wikipedia community to detect and properly handle the extreme disruption in due time are relevant to deciding whether harassment with sockpuppets did occur. Harassment which if left unchecked will continue in the future as well. Also these cases do not stand alone but as part of the bigger picture detailing continuous activity of extreme abuse. But when each case is looked at separately it may seem, like nothing particularly bad is going on, you have to look at them all together (I know it's hard of course) If you determine after reviewing the evidence and think the accounts are not socks that's fine as well I'll look for more evidence etc. Hobartimus (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Again, these socks were from over 9 months ago. How does this amount to a block on Iaaasi on something he did over 9 months ago? –MuZemike 19:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MuZemike. These accounts are inactive and possibly abandoned. If they return, we can re-assess then and determine what, if any, additional action needs to be taken regarding Iaaasi. TNXMan 13:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seen the ANI thread up and down too. Now a third clerk saying agree. Closing. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

The Banned editor Iaaasi is operating multiple sock or meatpuppets since his most recent block. This IP, [18] is one of his most recent socks. Following his usual MO the banned editor tries to engage unsuspecting administrators who are unfamiliar with his past history, this time he used a noticeboard even though he is banned [19]. I listed his most recent sock User:Galben for comparsion purposes even though it is already blocked. It seems there was also an issue with the rangeblock described here [20] as the user is still editing from that range. Hobartimus (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rangeblock was already enacted in the past [21] so it wouldn't be any need for enacting it, just reviewing it how that IP in the report, user:79.117.174.32 slipped through it. Hobartimus (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to your link, it looks like User:King of Hearts unblocked the range to try and use a filter instead. The filter he set up does not seem to be set up to stop IPs from this range. You may need to ask him for clarification. TNXMan 18:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. Hobartimus (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Galben (talk · contribs) is indeed a sock, as Jpgordon says. The range which is currently being used is a /13, which means it's too large to block. I don't know if there much else to do here, unfortunately. TNXMan 17:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]



19 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

The extremely disruptive banned editor Iaaasi will simply not stop. He already started to use an old sock / enlisted a meatpuppet, user:SISPCM, while at the same time still being to evade his BAN using IP-s. First the IP question needs to be solved in order to be able to focus on resolving the meatpuppet issue, so I think we need a permanent solution to these IPs cropping up all the time. Hobartimus (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One day later since the previous SPI the banned editor already returns with 3 new IPs listed above. Hobartimus (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I've blocked 79.117.160.0/19 for three days. It's a bit extreme and there'll be a little collateral damage, but hopefully it stops this for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

The twofold indef-blocked and community-banned Iaaasi is still around on Wikipedia. His interesting field covers the articles John Hunyadi [22]->[23], Székely [24], [25]->[26], and other Hungarian-Romanian related articles as was in the past ,too, done by his previously confirmed sockpuppets like here[27]. Interesting enough, that the article Temeşvar Eyalet was edited by Bozgo [28] and by two previously confirmed sockpuppets of Iaaasi, too:[29][30]
And yet, what is important to note is that there was a recent voting with respect to the title name of the article Béla Lugosi [31] and now this new user Futezatorul is eagerly interested in editing the article (which is a Hungarian-Romanian related article, anyway, and it could also be possible to fit to the interesting field of Iaaasi). [32])->[33] And in addition, Bozgo requested his own account to be deleted ,in order to forestall a sockpuppet investigation, according to my assumption, on 5 May, 2011. [34]

Nmate (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following:

11 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

User MateaKis seems to be new to Wikipedia, however, the account started right away with commencing a checkuser aimed at User:Stubes99 [35] , which is one of the main hallmarks of Iaaasi's trait. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99 was opened by CyanMoon, who is one of the detected sockpuppets of Iaaasi [36], just like YellowFF0, who was the second submitter of this page.[37] Likewise, the most active participant of this checuser request page was Iaaasi, yet when he was allowed to edit the English Wikipedia under his original account.[38] Also, Iaaasi is usually about to chase the sockpuppets of Stubes99 via Ip socks within his well known Ip range of 79.xxxx as can be seen here for instance:[39]-- Nmate (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
01 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Straightforward sock, most likely Iaaasi, with a very small chance of someone impersonating an Iaaasi sock or operating the sock at the direct orders of Iaaasi. In any case the contribution history makes it obvious, exl. the Fifth Crusade was edited by sock of the banned user [40] not that long ago. Hobartimus (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked by admin Closedmouth, rendering the case moot. Hobartimus (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note i added a newly created account LaszloBacs, continuing to revert where Nonairt left off. Hobartimus (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Both accounts indef blocked. As blatant a WP:DUCK case as I have seen for a long time. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

The master-account is a twofold-indef blocked and a site banned user, whose interesting field covers the Hungarian-Romanian related topics and user Dadamereu's interesing field covers the same topics as can be seen here: [41]-- Nmate (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed, no other sleepers. TNXMan 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


12 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Ever since Bizovne was unblocked about a week ago he's shown some great affinity towards continuing Iaaasi's "work" (masterpiece?) right where he left off. This includes reverting socks of Stubes99 (e.g. [42] and [43]) usually the same way Iaaasi did in the past (i.e. naming them "vandalism reverts" and marking them as minor edits such as [44] and [45]). He also started reporting the socks of Stubes99 which previously was Iaaasi's favorite hobby on WP (see [46], [47], [48] etc.). In fact Iaaasi has lately seemed to create sockpuppets for the sole reason of reporting Stubes99's socks.

Also one of Bizovne's reports raises extreme suspicion for the fact that it's been created just a couple of hours after Iaaasi has reported the same sockpuppet of Stubes99 (Darkercastel) on Commons. This points to quite close coordination indeed.

There's also more evidence regarding the meatpuppetry over at Bizovne's SPI thread written by Nmate which should be taken into consideration as well. It's quite obvious from all of these clues that Bizovne's getting detailed orders from Iaaasi on making its way on WP. -- CoolKoon (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request has been already rejected, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bizovne and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DeltaQuad#Bizovne.2C_Iaaasi
I don't know lassi. --Bizovne (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you should definitely polish your English a bit, because the first link (SPI) was first about your IP socks which've gotten a 3-month-long block for failing to abide by WP's rules. The talks about your affiliation was only a slight deviation of the original topic. But thanks for linking it anyway, because the things discussed there are still relevant here nonetheless and will just add to the (already long) list of evidences.
The discussion on DeltaQuad's talk page definitely does NOT mean that the case's been rejected, on the contrary. It's still in progress and the story of my encounter with Bizovne might shed some more light into the whole issue (and support the rest of the evidence mentioned above and other editors' notes mentioned below). -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

I don't understand why reporting Stubes99's made me suspect of being related with user Iassi. User Iassi was not the only user that was concerned about him. Excluding admins, user Iadrian yu and user Dacono are example of users which reverted some of Stubes99's socks. Have a nice day guys ! :-) --Bizovne (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing his recent edits I can say with certainty, that Iaaasi is no longer denying any use of his meatpuppet Bizovne. He in some edits clearly talks in his own voice (Iaaasi's) and no longer even pretending to be Bizovne, for example the conversation on DQ's talk page. I am extremely familiar with Iaaasi, his editing style and his thinking and I can confirm 100% that Bizovne edited as Iaaasi several times and used him as a meatpuppet to work around his well deserved BAN. In addition to being the obvious meatpuppet of the banned user Iaaasi, Bizovne in his short time on Wikipedia, collected quite a few blocks, not only on his main account [49], but on his sockpuppet accounts as well [50] [51]. Hobartimus (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: I would like to ask for another clerks impartial review also per my TP. My head is just spinning on this case and I can't pull north or south out of it. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up note to Bizovne/Clerks: I did say on my TP that I was willing to review a meat case. (Sorry I also put my comment in the wrong case...aka the one above.) -- DQ (t) (e) 00:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • User blocked by my TP and stuff for meating. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


The mass sockpuppeteer user:Iaaasi (more information on previous socks [52] is using a new IP range. This IP range starting with 184.24.xx.xx made edits such as this [53] (removing Hungarian names and content from Wikipedia is an Iaaasi all time favorite). Showing an interest in Iasi [54] where Iaaasi's name comes from, as well as other articles [55] [56] where Iaaasi and his sockpuppets were contributors [57] [58] More recently the IP range edited this article, which was also edited the most recent CU confirmed Iaaasi sock Buhuhu [59]. The contributions of 188.24.46.251 are very clear Iaaasi, using a sockpuppet to contact admins this time on ANI, which he in addition to using sockpuppets to file SPIs(exl [60][61]) did many times before. The "report" concerned the article 1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania also edited by the IP range and heavily edited and proposed for deletion by Iaaasi [62][63]. It is unclear whether this is Iaaasi directly or whether he is editing through another, newly recruited meatpuppet or proxy (see evidence of Iaaasi meatpuppet recruitment / emailing in the SPI archives and on his user page), but this shouldn't matter since it's clear that Iaaasi is the ultimate author of these edits. This case does NOT require a CheckUser as of yet as Iaaasi used a different IP range before. However newer suspected socks should be checked against both his old and new range. Collecting information on this new range is important so that the information for future CheckUsers and sockpuppet investigations against Iaaasi the new IP range of Iaaasi can be used. Hobartimus (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Administrator note Only the last three IPs have edited in the last month or so. Let's try this - I've blocked 188.24.32.0/20 for a week. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
06 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Keeeeper is an obvious sock, returning to the scene of where the IP socks edited before (as in the previous request). User Daccono is an older sockpuppet of Iaaasi but for some reason it was somehow left unblocked (??). In the case of the Daccono account it's blatantly making the same edits to the same articles as the confirmed socks for example [64] This account was also blocked earlier with the comment "indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: User:Bonaparte)". However it was mistakenly unblocked at the time with no evidence provided (there was a reference to CheckUser consultation but as we know it can't prove a negative in case of a user documented using meatpuppets / proxies as Iaaasi user page indicates the use of meatpuppet recruitment).[65] Recently Daccono also wrote this message in Iaaasi's voice [66]. Since Daccono and Iaaasi did overlap taking a look at the user-compare report should also be revealing. (during Iaaasi's first indefinite block Daccono used to heavily edit this is where attention first came to Daccono in the form of the block) Daccono made very few edits in 2011 which helped him avoid getting too much attention (a successuful strategy so far). But when we examine these edits we see that ,for example Daccono edited "Hősök tere" [67] and confirmed Iaaasi sock also edited [68]. Daccono edited Massacres in Translyvania [69] and an Iaaasi sock from the IP range discussed in previous request [70] (see edit summaries as well). The "new" user Keeeeper is also very interested in the same article... Further Daccono made lots of very similar edits to the original Iaaasi account as well, so a user-compare report could be used to determine whether he is Iaaasi even if CheckUser shows it to be a meatpuppet or a proxy account. In this case the underlying IP (the IP used by the Daccono sock) should be added to the internal CU database against which Iaaasi socks are checked in the future (was it a proxy was it a new range was it one of the old ranges etc). If user-compare is bugged between Daccono and Iaaasi then Daccono and Iaaasi could be compared directly as well in terms of edit summaries and edits at John Hunyadi for example, where Iaaasi and his many socks(Umumu, Rogvaiv1, Conttest, etc) are top contributors as well as Daccono [71] (Daccono's first edit was also to the same John Hunyadi article, this account was created during the first block of Iaaasi) Hobartimus (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I already referenced the 2010 (almost a year ago) comment by PeterSymonds above he was alluding to CheckUser consultation. Now we have an additional year to look at the evidence (is this a real user? Was he editing as a real user? (not really made very few edits and all of them Iaaasi sockish). Additionally that comment by PeterSymonds actually raised my suspicion more and not less. Lets take a real user, how will they typically get unblocked? By an unblock request made on their user page. How would an Iaaasi sock get unblocked? By Iaaasi offering pre-prepared "proof" on IRC or similar. Lets look at the facts, was there even an unblock request on August 12th? Nope there wasn't. Daccono never asked to be unblocked. Yet the fact that he got unblocked without making a request and within a very short time (6 hours) suggest to me that the case was involving IRC which Iaaasi used heavily at the time. But a year since passed and there is a lot more of an editing pattern to look at now, making the case easily decidable without any CheckUser. How many edits would a real editor make in a year? How many would a sock that already was blocked indef for being a sock and therefore drew a lot of attention already. Why did he contact Tiptoety out of the blue [72] on August 16th? Was Tiptoety just some random admin out of the 1000? Or was he complained to before by Iaaasi socks [73][74].(later also contacted by Iaaasi main account should I announce you first before reverting) I believe a detailed look at the contributions can determine this case without any CheckUser being used. In 2010 we didn't know Iaaasi employed meatpuppets. That he had multiple ranges that he used either through proxy or personally. Now we now he had dynamic IP ranges in Craiova and in Bukarest at the same time at minimum, as well as meatpuppets as far as in Slovakia (Bizovne per earlier case). I wouldn't be surprised if a Checkuser at the time would say "well the data shows they are different persons..." But that type of thinking no longer applies regarding the current situation. And also there is the most recent case. Daccono shows up in the exact same article to revert as other socks of Iaaasi? I also added a new IP that recently appeared, [75]seems to be from the new range of Iaaasi discovered in the previous SPI request (see SPI archives for case Iaaasi) This IP is making the same edit with the same edit summary as Keeeeper, who is listed in this request. So a CheckUser/duck test is probably necessary against Keeeeper against Iaaasi's new range, while Daccono will have to be determined on editing pattern without the use of CheckUser. User compare report could help there if it can be done between Daccono and Iaaasi. Hobartimus (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the last request the IP falls into the new range of Iaaasi that was range blocked for two weeks recently (see the archives). Daccono doesn't need to be checked at this time against either the old or new range. It just needs a user compare report generated first. like this but between Iaaasi-Daccono instead of Iaaasi and the 188.24 IPs. Does anyone know when do these auto generated reports get updated so we could get one on the Daccono-Iaaasi relation? Hobartimus (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeltaQuad your last comment seems quite puzzling to me, I've never actually seen someone attack the results of an already closed earlier SPI case like that. In that case it was established by closing admin and per the evidence that the range 188.24.XX is either Iaaasi outright, or Iaaasi throguh a meatpuppet. Another thing I don't understand is how a comment to my talk page from July 2010 would be relevant in September 2011. Not to mention that the original comment was quite ignorant of the circumstances at the time to begin with. Coming from an editor who wasn't familiar with the extent of Iaaasi's socking, complains on July 13, unaware that only four days earlier on July 9, two different confirmed Iaaasi socks were blocked by CheckUser MartinMagera blocked July 9, Karpatia1 blocked July 9 showing these exact few days to be one of the high points of confirmed Iaaasi sock activity. Since July 2010 a very large number of (IP and regular socks) socks of Iaaasi have edited wikipedia (partial list), most, but not all were CheckUser confirmed. Unfortunately CheckUser is starting to get useless against such an experienced socker as Iaaasi transformed into. Other than that issue, volume is a further concern, nobody has the time to file that many SPIs for each and every new sock that appears and then wait for SPI cases to close (and then possibly even a closed and decided case being attacked/reopened) before reverting a new sock. This would be almost equivalent of lifting the BAN on Iaaasi, but lifting the ban should only be done by the community consensus. Your comment about reverts is all the more puzzling because I don't know which reverts of mine you are referring to. Recently I only reverted Keeeeper (who was called "duckish"), IP 188.24.33.188(from a range confirmed to be Iaaasi by admin HelloAnnyong), and [76] a new IP with a single edit that's the exact same edit as the other two were doing, in addition to previous confirmed Iaaasi IP socks. In addition ALL the edits are taking place in an article heavily edited by Iaaasi, proposed for deletion by Iaaasi[77], whose talk page was also edited by Iaaasi, an otherwise very obscure low traffic article. So much so that Keeeeper one of the socks (hope thats not in question that he (the "duckish" one) is a sock at most one could argue that he is a sock of a different user...) in the report is already 3rd ranked contributor in this article [78] In other words I reverted these edits because I believed that no reasonable person who is familiar with Iaaasi and his editing pattern (familiar defined as s/he read at least 10% of Iaaasi's 6-7k confirmed editsdistributed over many different accounts) could disagree. If I was wrong in that I will note it and simply switch to different edit summaries. I also don't happen to agree with the edits themselves, what they are making (readding text that was originally added by the Iaaasi main account, compare by Iaaasi with [79][80][81]) so I would have made very similar edits in any case just would explain the reasons differently. A lot of the behavioral evidence always requires good familiarity with earlier edits and in Iaaasi's case that's very hard to achieve because the contributions are so fragmented and takes quite a long time to review. I think the key here is thinking instead of "I don't think X is related to Y" to say "there is not enough evidence yet to conclusively say whether X and Y are related or not" And then possibly look at their contribs in detail and compare them. Related of course can mean sockpuppet, meatpuppet, proxy whatever, some of which are easier to determine than others. I am also filing a technical request about Daccono that's just a technical thing it's just to get the UserCompare unbugged, it seems very bugged at the moment. Please don't touch that request yet it can be deleted after the bug is solved. Please don't comment on Daccono before that technical issue can be solved. Hobartimus (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning the Daccono-Iaaasi relation can be found here. Additional similarities are further possible as the report only compares the Iaaasi main account to Daccono. For example close matches such as CU confirmed Iaaasi socks editing an article on May 31 , May 30 and Daccono editing the same article June 1 are not included in that report. I can't say whether this was done through a proxy a meatpuppet, or a sockpuppet operated from a library or similar, but something is definitely up here. Hobartimus (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Keeeeper looks duckish, Daccono isn't new, but looks unrelated esp per the block log noted below, but does he match any other socks? That's as far as i'm looking tonight. Lets get the lot on Subbes99 and Iaaasi checked.
(del/undel) 17:17, 12 August 2010 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Daccono (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Behaviour and technical evidence (as discussed with a CheckUser) seems to indicate this account is unrelated to the Bonaparte/Iassi socks. )

-- DQ (t) (e) 06:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keeeeper is a  Possible match to the previous accounts in the archive. It looks like Daccono was already checked. No comment on the IP. TNXMan 13:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: At this point, i'm not convinced that either of these are Iaaasi. Keeeeper does have a lot more suspicion than the other, but I doubt this is the same user. I actually disagree with the 188 being Iaaasi as HA noted in the last case. Would like another opinion though from another clerk, who is free to contact me further about my thoughts. (I would actually prefer if they did contact me). Also, Hobartimus, I think you could chill on so fastly reverting users as socks as was pointed out to you. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I've taken a look at this. First, the IP listed here geolocates to Romania. Many of the other IPs in the archive also geolocate there. Also consider that the IP's only edit had an edit summary of "I am not banned." But this was the IP's first edit; it wasn't like they had previously edited and then had been blocked. Another IP, 88.158.36.38, made the exact same edit five hours later - and that IP also geolocates to Romania. Soyeah, I'm pretty convinced on the IPs.
As for the accounts: I don't really see where Daccono was checked, but I'm not wholly convinced about them. By comparison, I am fairly convinced about Keeeper. For example, their edit here is similar to one by Iaaasi though separated out. Either way it's clear that Keeeper is not new to Wikipedia. (I can expand on this, but WP:BEANS and all.) Anyway, I've blocked and tagged Keeeper as a sock. The IP hasn't edited in a few days so I'm going to count it as stale for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Iaaasi has a penchant to hover at the most recent contributions made by Hungarian users to Wikipedia as these new users have done. Howbeit, I am not 100% sure these accounts are Iaaasi's, but my inkling is that.-- Nmate (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons can't be very obvious as long as the suspected users have very few edits on Wikipedia.

Iaaasi edited the same artice as TransilvaniaROU did ([82] [83])¶([84] And Bizove participated in a voting about an article which is related to the Hungarians [85] as TransilvaniaROU did here [86]. Iaaasi's sokpuppets were interested in editing the article Magyarization [87] [88] as TransilvaniaROU did [89]. One of Iaaasi's sock edited List of Nobel laureates [90] , but TransilvaniaROU edited Rolf Schock Prizes here

However, as far as I see, User:WestSVK is already blocked for block evasion, but I do not know why.--Nmate (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I'm not really convinced; any of these could also be Bizovne as well. I'm adding a checkuser to find out. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from TransilvaniaROU, there is no obvious reason to suspect that any of these are socks, let alone of Iaaasi (or Bizovne).  Additional information needed: Please spell out the connection more plainly. AGK [•] 14:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Editing patterns between Iaaasi and TransilvaniaROU are highly suspicious, but I don't see anything to indicate connection to the other two. Then again, I'm not sure on Transilvania based on behavioral alone. I might only check Transilvania vs Iaaasi. The other two would seem to be on the verge of fishing, and I would disregard them. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 16:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Endorse check of Iaaasi vs TransilvaniaROU. Disregard Fred From Toaster Supplies. Would be good if TNXMan could comment on WestSVK's block. (as long as privacy could be maintained) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 16:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • TransilvaniaROU is  Possible - Same geographic area, similar useragent. Did not check the other accounts. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WestSVK is a  Confirmed match to Bizovne. TNXMan 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I'm wondering if it would make sense to check Transilvania and Iaaasi to Bizovne, due to their similar editing habits. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Hobartimus (talk · contribs) for useful info regarding Iaaasi and Bizovne. Based on that I'm inclined to say block of Transilvania is in order due to fairly strong behavioral tendencies, and a history of meat/sock puppetry. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a patrolling administrator please decide the outstanding questions about the suspected socks, and block, tag, and close the case? I'm reluctant to do so myself, because I have already commented in a CU capacity. Thanks, AGK [•] 12:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I've blocked and tagged TransilvaniaROU. The other account edited a total of one time, and that was a month ago - so we can let it go for now, I think. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Obvious Iaaasi sock very recently created. It follows the same pattern of most previous Iaaasi socks. The account also recently deleted [91] [92] some information from the talk page of an admin, Dianaa. It is worth noting that Iaaasi and Diannaa have a history. Diannaa was the admin who revealed that Iaaasi is attempting to recruit editors who would proxy for him in order to circumvent his WP:BAN. Dianna said that "Banned user Iaaasi is sending e-mails to myself and at least two other editors in attempt to get people to edit Wikipedia on his behalf." [93]. And therein lies the main problem the community failed to tackle so far. With confirmed reports as early as this April of recruitment by Iaaasi it becomes trivially easy for him to avoid CheckUser. I'm not sure whether to ask for CheckUser here, it's 100% clear that this is Iaaasi but when editing through one of the recruited proxies, CheckUser have no way of detecting that. Hobartimus (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed that Dotonj (talk · contribs) is the same as SamiraJ (talk · contribs). Proxy blocked. TNXMan 18:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Anyways, Dotonj (talk · contribs) is now Blocked Tiptoety talk 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
04 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Iaaasi's newest sock, he already confirmed it through a since then auto-blocked proxy IP, so Checkuser is not needed. I'm only leaving a note, because one legitimate editor asked for it.

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.64.22.14 This IP is not mine, it is another user Fraere (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following are the same:

10 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Borderline - not entirely the same - similar editing pattern to Iaaasi. Relatively long-time editor; might not really be Iaaasi. Has previously reverted Stubes99 sockpuppets, which constantly make claims of sockpuppetry by Iaaasi; since then, appears editor has been attacked by Stubes on numerous occasions. (mainly at User talk:Diannaa) Requesting CheckUser for confirmation. HurricaneFan25 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

I do not believe Iadrian yu is the sockpuppet of Iaaasi. This is a highly unlikely claim that was made earlier by Iaaasi himself. In October I have seen a youtube video that showed an email written by Iaaasi with the text: "STOP SOCKING ON MATTHIAS CORVINUS ARTICLE. MY SOCK-PUPPET IADRIAN YU WILL REVERT YOU !!!" In early october in an email Iaaasi wrote. This actually makes me believe even more that this is not the case. First of all Iaaasi is a banned user known to lie all the time for furthering his goals. I don't think Iadrian even edited the Mathias Corvinus article, but in any case based on their contributions I am certain that they are different people. This is why I am surprised to see this SPI request because I think this was an obvious smoke-screen sent up by Iaaasi. In my view it is not possible that Iadrian yu is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi and as such a CheckUser is not necessary in my opinion. In addition Iaaasi has demonstrated use of proxy servers and meatpuppets, so CheckUser will only work against him in lucky cases (and not at all here as Iadrian is clearly not a sock of Iaaasi). Instead of relying on CheckUser the community should try to examine IRC logs and email exchanges by Iaaasi if this is at all possible because he does seem to contact a lot of people (primarily admins) to ask various things of them and trying to get them to edit on their behalf. So in my view the CheckUser request should be rejected. Sorry I got distracted by something else I wrote this comment a lot earlier than I posted it. Hobartimus (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iadrian yu

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

I am really surprised by this sudden request.. but anyway I am ready whenever it is requested of me to do a check-user. Just in case I wasn't clear or I need to declare myself officially upon this request, I am not a sock of Iaaasi or similar. Please bare in mind I have never did this and I would require some explanation if I need to do something from my account. About the accusations, I don`t don`t want to comment about something that is being claimed by User:Stubes99 and his standard chauvinistic insults.Adrian (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hobartimus, thanks for the comment, I am surprised as well since I speak languages that Iaaasi doesn`t (I have never seen him or his sock that speaks other than English) while I speak some Slavic languages and even edited some time the Serbian wikipedia which I believe can be checked also. I believe I have some comments in Serbian here on the English wiki too. I thought that this fact is more than enough for anyone who analyzed my account.. Anyway, maybe this is a good thing since I have been accused by several editors being a sock of User:Olahus and similar to clear this once and for all.Adrian (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Despite the overlap in broad areas of editing, Iadrian yu is technically Red X Unrelated to Iaaasi. AGK [•] 23:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please do not use headers for your comments, especially if the header is of a higher level than the others on the case page, because doing so breaks WP:SPI horribly. Thanks, AGK [•] 23:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Identical contributions, such as these two. Relevant ANI thread here. Calabe1992 21:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Please note also that Iaaasi being an extremely experienced sockpuppeter and one who have already demonstrated usage of both proxies and meatpuppets (accounts created to post to wikipedia what he writes) CheckUser is not relevant to this case and instead the contributions should be examined and compared to that of Iaaasi and sockpuppets. The thing to determine here ; is Daccono acting on behalf of Iaaasi always posting into wikipedia what Iaaasi writes and editing what Iaaasi wants edited. Hobartimus (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Likely - Looks like he is attempting to use new IP ranges and Useragents. Give the following block log entry: (del/undel) 21:17, 12 August 2010 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs | block) unblocked Daccono (talk | contribs) ‎ (Behaviour and technical evidence (as discussed with a CheckUser) seems to indicate this account is unrelated to the Bonaparte/Iassi socks. ) I might recommend contacting PeterSymonds before taking administrative action. Tiptoety talk 00:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't remember many specifics, but the CU didn't seem to think it was Iaaasi, and after further digging, the pair of us decided there were too many differences. I'm happy with the finding of this check, especially in light of the recent edits. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I could see how another CheckUser could mark this as more as a highly  Possible, but given they are geolocating to the same exact city and are editing via the same ISP I would say it is conclusive enough (coupled with the edits) to block. Tiptoety talk 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi/Archive&oldid=463102386"