Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BedrockPerson/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BedrockPerson

03 January 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

BedrockPerson (BP) has been using these two IP addresses to edit-war, predominantly (and most recently) on List of founders of religious traditions, and earlier on Solomon's Temple, Isaac, Jacob, and Jericho. Both IP addresses are traceable to New York. I have issued three prior warnings to BP about sockpuppetry, initially in an edit summary and then twice on talkpages ([1] and [2]). It should also be noted that BP has been warned for edit-warring multiple times (see his talkpage) and is currently serving a six-month ban on Wiktionary for disruptive editing.

Evidence linking BedrockPerson to 47.20.180.129

This is pretty straightforward. 47.20's contributions have all been to articles where BP was involved in an editing dispute. This is evident from the page histories of the pages List of founders of religious traditions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Solomon's Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Jacob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Jericho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In many cases these edits have been made either minutes before or minutes after one of BP's edits. I can provide specific examples (i.e. diffs) if it's absolutely necessary, but because the situation is so messy I believe the sockpuppetry is best demonstrated by looking through page histories.

Evidence linking BedrockPerson to 170.24.133.2

This is also pretty straightforward, and can be best demonstrated by viewing the revision history of List of founders of religious traditions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Both BP and this IP address have also edited the articles Schism, Maimonides, and Deborah, although those were not particularly disruptive edits.

Attempt to game the system (edit war with himself)

At List of founders of religious traditions, BedrockPerson got into an edit war with himself (i.e. making disruptive edits and then immediately reverting them). He subsequently requested page protection. I believe this was an attempt to block all IPs from the article, which would have the effect of preventing me (an IP editor) from continuing to revert his edit-warring, which I have been doing over the past few days. 124.148.103.22 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Defense: Okay, so there are a few things I'd like to dispute. Firstly, if it matters, the accuser and I have had conflict in the past, which might not necessarily demerit his efforts, but is still notable. The IP is a good editor and hasn't acted out of any malintent, as of yet, though his vocabulary choice to describe my offenses outside this report have been mildly offensive. Regardless, there's no doubt in my mind that this IP is acting without regard to whatever personal opinions or ideas he may harbor in the manner. Secondly, the accusation that this edit war is with myself, or aimed to ban IPs from editing, is ludicrous and nonsensical. Had this been achieved, the conflict in question would have still progressed. Also, adding to that, perhaps the claim that this is me trying to ban IPs would hold, if not for the fact that I am actively engaging in combating the disruption of the page in question. If it were my goal to ban the IPs from editing, I would not have bothered to continuously undo the edits, as User:IdreamofJeanie had more than a simple cap on the problem. And no, contrary to the IPs statements, the edits were not immediately undone, in fact, there was a solid 52 minutes between the most recent cases. Not to mention, the IPs in question not only has a pre-established history of making disruptive edits, but started this trend in November 2016, far before this conflict even began. Also to point out that this IP was vandalizing pages concurrent with edits I made on separate pages on the same date. Does it make sense for me to go onto some random page as an IP and vandalize it while I was making constructive edits at the same time, on totally different pages? For example, the IP's edit of the Christopher Hitchens page on December 16 was preformed at the same time as not one, not two, but three immediately consecutive edits to a completely different page. If this IP was me, why and how would I do this? The only IPs I use are my mobile phone (69.249.79.118) and my home laptop, which I cannot provide the IP at the moment.

I'd also like to point out, in researching one of the IPs, I found it is used on a school community board, indicating that there are multiple users on the IP. For example, I am currently using the school computer to type this, I will appear on the school's IP, not the computer's personal location.

To close, checking the dates on some edits made, albeit not the most recent ones, do not fit the timeframe (or even time zone it seems) I usually make edits. Accusing me of sockpuppetry because vandals edited the same page I had edited in the past is not a valid case.

BedrockPerson (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re your claim that "edits were not immediately undone", according to this there was a gap of 21 seconds between this edit by 47.20.180.129 and the following edit by BedrockPerson. It is almost physically impossible for that to be anything other than sockpuppetry. 124.148.103.22 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah because it's not like the page is on my watchlist and I was already being active at the time. You realize the page was actively being vandalized right? Why wouldn't I check up on it every minute? It's not news that I have a fast reaction time. This has been observed several times in the past. BedrockPerson (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't intend to get involved and I don't know if BedrockPerson is a puppetmaster or not. I did notice the synchrony between BP and one of the IPs myself on two articles. Looking at the entire case, I must say it looks bad; the overlap is extensive and the synchrony between BP and IPs striking. It's for an admin to make the call, but I think the very least that can be said is that the reporter has done his/her job and that the case does merit consideration. Jeppiz (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • It's hard to evaluate evidence when it consists almost entirely of reverts; the same argument could be made for 124.148.103.22 on the other side. I would say there is not sufficient evidence at this moment, but I've schoolblocked 170.24.133.2 to cut off one avenue for sockpuppetry if the allegations are true, as legitimate users can create accounts at home to edit at school. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

For the love of God, how many times are we going to go through this song and dance? I'm serious. I'm staying out of this, just someone let me know when this comes to a conclusion. Call it a bad attitude to have, and I'll apologize for that much. I'm at least guilty of that. Either way, I'm carrying on with my day. BedrockPerson (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These IPS are not active accounts. They both have only 6 edits, and the dates don't overlap. Of these 6 edits each, only the most recent of each arouse the suspicion of Huldra. Even if they were made by the same editor, I don't think a single edit is reason for a sockpuppet investigation. Debresser (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought using IPs etc in order to gain an upper hand in an edit war was exactly the thing we should never, ever do? Also, unknown to me, it seems as if BedrockPerson was engaged in similar behaviour just this January? Huldra (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with youo. This should never, ever be done. That doesn't mean that a one-time offense means a person should be blocked right away. Just saying, since I have seen many such coincidences as the one you describe above without sockpuppets at work. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it should never, ever be done, .....yet accepted once in March, (and once in January?) ..by the very same editor. Would you have been equally lenient towards a pro-Palestinian editor? Seriously? Huldra (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Possibly. I have been known to surprise based on vague principles of mine. In any case, this question itself is a bad faith question. I'd rather you assume good faith. I see only the one edit from two distinct IPs in March, and find this report far-fetched. Would you have reported a pro-Palestinian editor for the same? Debresser (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If s/he edit warred with me, absolutely. And I would love to see you answer the question I raised here: would you have removed the info, if 5% of Yarkas population had been Jewish? Huldra (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they weren't, since they would be pro-Palestinian, of course. I replied there, but that is not the issue. Debresser (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say, Huldra, it's incredibly sickening to see you politics into this. You are clearly a very intelligent woman, you should know much better than that. My edits are not politically motivated, nor do they contain an iota of political preference in the content they change. Who are you to accuse either I or Debresser of letting personal opinions get in the way of editing? Would he have been "as lenient to a pro-Palestinian editor"? Are you serious? Who cares? Why is this an issue? Since when do you have the right to assume where I stand on this issue? Do you think it's just black-and-white? That you can just simply generalize a person down to which side they preside over in a conflict happening a thousand miles away? That you can put that personal opinion on blast because someone rebuts you? What is to gain from this, Huldra? What are you implying? That the fact I'm pro-Israel somehow makes me better fit to receive punishment? Somehow makes me more likely to be guilty? And on that note, who the hell are you to judge Debresser? A user who had no business in this report and yet took the time to better it with input. A report you made, a report you of all people would want to have improved viability. Don't use politics as an excuse to jerk out ad hominem, and don't you dare for even an instant think my opinions make me, Debresser, or anyone that opposes you any less legitimate. And for the record, I'm pro-Palestine. So thanks for the punch in the gut. BedrockPerson (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was obviously a tad emotional, and should be read as such, discarding the perhaps less than civil language and rather looking at the intent of it. With which I fullheartedly agree! Huldra should stop viewing Wikipedia as a battlefield for her opinions, using Wikilawyering to dispose of her opponents. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@BedrockPerson: You make a lot of personal and political rants here, which are not helpful, but nowhere do you address the merits of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BedrockPerson hasn't responded here in over a week, so I've blocked him two days. The evidence is convincing enough for me, though I don't know whether it's meat puppetry or BedrockPerson himself. The IPs are stale. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 April 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This is the first time I’ve asked for an investigation into sockpuppetry, so let me know if I’m doing something wrong or leaving something out. My concern is a set of similarities in the behavior of BedrockPerson and 47.20.180.129. To start with, the Editor Interaction Analyser ([3]) shows that they have eight pages in common. The time between their edits has a minimum of 21 seconds and a maximum of four days. Seven of the pages involve edits within one day of each other. BedrockPerson began editing in July 2016, while an IP began “helping” him frequently in November. The two have been seen together as recently as yesterday, where they work together in edit wars. At the bottom of the page, I note an argument tactic they share.

In addition, the IP address was accused of being BedrockPerson’s puppet in January [4].

Of the pages they have in common, the IP has in all cases made between one and four edits. BedrockPerson has made between 2 and 85 edits to the pages, with six of the eight pages seeing ten or more edits by BedrockPerson.

Looking at the User Contributions page for the IP shows ([5]) that all but two of the IP’s edits, beginning 24 November 2016, were to a page also edited by bedrock person. Of the two remaining, one, to a Middle Eastern deities template, was is related to the subjects which the IP and Bedrock tend to edit: middle eastern-related religious topics.

In the case of Jericho, BedrockPerson added a reference to Britannica [6]. The next edit was by User:Doug Weller, an admin, removing the edit: [7]. Eleven minutes later, the IP intervened to restore BedrockPerson’s citation, without explanation [8]. The same minute, BedrockPerson undid the IP’s edit [9]. Summary: IP address leapt to the aid of Bedrock, Bedrock then reverted the IP address.

On Solomon’s Temple, BedrockPerson added some references to the article [10]. User:Jeppiz then reverted a number of BedrockPerson’s edits, warning him in the Talk Summary about his edit warring [11]. Eight minutes later, the IP address reverted Jeppiz’s edit [12]. User:Jusdafax then reverted the IP’s revert [13]. Three minutes pass, and BedrockPerson reappears [14]. Summary: IP address came to Bedrock’s rescue.

On a portal about current events, Bedrock made a seemingly minor edit ([15]). User:Capitalistroadster added something about a suicide bombing. The IP address then made a minor edit [16]. Summary: seemingly unrelated edits, close in time.

At List of founders of religious traditions, BedrockPerson makes a disputed edit, arguing about "consensus" [17]. Another editor argues that BedrockPerson is lying about consensus [18]. The IP address appears and reverts without discussion [19]. Another editor reverts [20]. BedrockPerson reverts, arguing that he’s “technically” not edit-warring [21]. User:IdreamofJeanie reverts [22]. The IP address comes to BedrockPerson’s aid and reverts [23]. An editor reverts, accusing BedrockPerson of sockpuppetry [24]. Our IP reverts again [25]. A seemingly unrelated edit [26]. Another editor reverts our IP’s work, accuses of sockpuppetry again [27]. Another IP address shows up, vandalized [28], gets reverted [29]. Now the vandal comes to BedrockPerson’s aid, without explanation [30]. IdreamofJeanie reverts [31]. A third IP comes to the aid of BedrockPerson [32]. BedrockPerson reverts his new supporter [33]. IP address now adds the text BedrockPerson first wanted in the article, reverting Bedrock’s removal of it [34]. IdreamofJeanie reverts [35]. IP address adds Bedrock’s text back in [36]. BedrockPerson reverts, denies sockpuppetry [37]. Summary: bizarre set of interactions between Bedrock and his IP ally, plus two new IP allies, one of whom starts arguing in favor of bedrock’s position while Bedrock switches to argue against in a mini-edit-war sideshow. Weird.

At Isaac, an editor reverts Bedrock’s work, [38]. User:Oshwah restores Bedrock’s material [39]. Editor adds qualifications to the restored text [40], User:Ian.thomson reverts [41]. Qualifications go back in [42]. Bedrock's IP friend steps in, reverts to what it calls “consensus version” [43]. Editor reverts [44]. Bedrock reverts [45]. Time passes, other edits are made, and one day I User:Alephb remove a date from an infobox [46]. Four weeks pass, and Bedrock adds unsourced dates back without an edit summary [47], plus another edit [48]. I remove the unsourced material, refer BedrockPerson to talk page [49]. Bedrock restores the dates, still uncited, arguing that I have “no consensus” [50]. Later, after some talk page discussion, User:Jytdog removes the infobox in question [51]. I ad sourced information to page [52]. Bedrock’s IP friend appears, removed the sourced information without explanation, and restores the infobox in the same edit with something vaguely explanation-like [53]. I restore the information removed without explanation [54]. Jytdog removes the infobox [55]. Summary: Bedrock gets in a disagreement, his IP friend helps him

At Abraham, User:Tahc adds citation needed tag to unsourced dates in an infobox [56]. Jytdog removes the unsourced material [57]. Later, Jytdog removes the infobox [58]. An anonymous IP, not Bedrock’s usual IP helper, pitches in and restores Bedrock’s version of things [59]. Jytdog removes the unsourced material [60]. Bedrock’s IP friend appears and reverts to Bedrock’s preferred dates, arguing “You have no consensus” [61]. Jytdog tries a new format [62]. Bedrock’s IP friend reverts to Bedrock’s version, arguing “no consensus” again [63]. Jytdog makes an edit [64]. IP friend reverts [65]. Jytdog reverts, citing editor agreement in his favor [66]. IP friend reverts, making a (false) claim that Jytdog has no support (see talk page) [67]. Summary: Bedrock in disagreement, IP shows up to argue in favor.

Edits in which BedrockPerson uses talk summaries to argue about the state of consensus to justify reverting [68]. Edits in which the IP associated with Bedrock uses talk summaries to justify a revert on the basis of consensus [69], [70], [71], [72].

I could do this for the other two pages, but the picture should be clear enough. Alephb (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Yeah, this is me. I had no fucking idea I was logged out! That's what I get for trying to edit Wikipedia after a four hour midnight seder. Whooooops. BedrockPerson (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have believed that, if this was only about today, but it isn't. There is a longer history here, and I don't find the denial of the pattern credible, given the quick succession of edits logged in and logged out as shown in some of the diffs above. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Musta been exhausted something fierce too. Well shit, still not an excuse. I've admitted guilt, there's really no need to continue the investigation. Now we wait for admin or something to block me and archive this. 15:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

information Administrator note BedrockPerson and the IP both blocked three days for edit warring while logged out. The admission of guilt somewhat mitigates this, but, as others have pointed out, this is a continuing pattern not easily dismissed by "it was an accident". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18 June 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User displaying similar edit warring behaviour and adding same image to articles mouth ulcer, aphthous stomatitis and ulcer. Not sure if this justifies use of CheckUser, not sure if user(s) should be notified. Many thanks. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:45, 18 June 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]

Red X Unrelated. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

26 July 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


We're dealing here with a possible sock of User:BedrockPerson, who has been blocked for sockpuppetry before. The latest possible sock is the newly created user User:Bontaspontak.

BedrockPerson has been blocked twice following sockpuppetry investigations on 11 March 2017 and 12 April 2017. Two other investigations did not result in any disciplinary action. These investigations can be found here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BedrockPerson/Archive ].

On 7 July 2017, BedrockPerson was also recently blocked after being reported for edit-warring by User:Jytdog at Jezebel, a page which is relevant to this latest possible instance of sockpuppetry. The block diff is here: [73]. The incident that lead to the block is here: [74].

More recently, on 21 July 2017, a one-week block was levied for edit-warring at Samuel, another page which is relevant to this latest round of possible sockpuppetry. The report can be found here: [75]. The block diff is here: [76]. It is important to note that in this case, the edit-warring was about BedrockPerson's desire to add a date to an infobox.

Today, in the middle of BedrockPerson's block, a new account named Bontaspontak was created. Bontaspontak's contributions [77] show that Bontaspontak has made edits to Samuel, Habakkuk, Zalishchyky, and Jezebel. Two of these, as noted above, where pages that got BedrockPerson blocked.

The Editor Interaction Analyser [78] shows that all of the pages that Bontaspontak has worked on are pages that BedrockPerson previously worked on.

Bontaspontak's edit to Jezebel is the addition of a date to Jezebel's infobox [79]. Bontaspontak's three edits to Samuel all pick up where BedrockPerson's edit-warring left of by adding dates to the Samuel article and its infobox [80] [81] [82]. The first two edits are marked "minor" and contain misleading edit summaries.

Given that BedrockPerson has a history of using sockpuppets to carry on edit-wars, and given that Bontaspontak appeared during BedrockPerson's block, I think this warrants looking into. Alephb (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a look at the comments on Aphthous stomatitis shows that the BendaRikter and BedrockPerson were very recently on the same side of an edit conflict, just as Bontaspont. I don't know if that rises to whatever is considered a "behavioral connection," but both BendaRikter and Botaspont show some degree of overlap in aims with BedrockPerson. Alephb (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I agree with the OP. Was going to file this myself tonight. The edits of the sock are not those of a newbie, and they went directly at the articles and details where the master is clearly frustrated. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is stunning, somewhat. The identified account is also brand new. The behavioral evidence here is so strong that i was not going to ask for a CU. I do hope the patrolling admins take the behavior into account. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC) (added missing "not" Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Strongly suspected these are same editor. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is legitimately terrifying. I've created a monster! But seriously, this actually isn't me, which just adds to the scariness of this whole thing. You all oughta have a little more faith in me. Besides, my socks have been busy on other wikis anyway ;) BedrockPerson (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

20 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


The two accounts edit the exact same kinds of things. A look at the editor interaction analyser will show this clearly: [83]. Both accounts focus on articles related to Judaism and, to a much lesser extent, oral health. Among the articles they have both edited are Samaritanism, Herod the Great, Paduli, Chortkiv Raion Jagielnica, Zalishchyky, Mouth Ulcer, Aphthous Stomatitis, my User talk page, Lanivtsi, Buchach, Ternopil, Tovste, Slender Man, and Krishna. A look at the talk pages of either shows constant problems with sourcing issues and edit-warring.

The following collection of diffs shows them both edit-warring at Mouth Ulcer: [84]. More specifically, here's an angry BedrockPerson re-adding a particular image of a severe mouth ulcer: [85]. Here's the other user adding a picture to the same page: [86], and adding it again [87], and adding it again [88].

I could come up with more diffs ad nauseum if anyone thinks it will help, but it should be easy enough to follow the links above to talk pages, through the editor analyser, and so on. Alephb (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed + MatzoSock (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (prize for clever username).  Blocked and tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


BedrockPerson's sock User:יבריב was blocked today. The new IP has come along and is doing nothing but editing at pages recently edited by the banned sock, restoring the socks previous edits. The diffs can all be easily be found here: [89]. Alephb (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, now that I look more closely, the IP here explicitly claims to be the sockmaster, so that helps: [90]. Alephb (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

26 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


More of the same as the most recent reincarnation of BedrockPerson, named User:יבריב. Editor interaction analyzer shows pages in common: [91] Jesus in the Talmud, Edom, Jeroboam's Revolt, Baal-Eser II, and Zalishchyky, the last of which is now protected due to the IP-hopping in evasion of the block. A glance at the IP's edit-history shows the same pattern of edit conflict, and the same obsession with adding foreign-language script versions of names into articles. Alephb (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the above was just overlap with Yvryv (Hebrew script). Overlap with BedrockPerson, the original sockmaster, shows Yarka, Zalishchyky, Jeroboam's Revolt, Template:Middle Eastern deities, Kothar-wa-Khasis, and Jericho: [92].

And here's the three-way edit interactions: [93]. Lots and lots of the same obscure articles. Alephb (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential IP has now appeared, here: 69.113.182.194. All it does is revert my edits, with one exception, Elisha, where, in typical BedrockPerson/יבריב, its edit was . . . right up next to one of those lists of non-Latin script words that Bedrock/יבריב/whoever is so fond of. And then, of course, it's stuff is being reverted by User:Go2helalefb, who is, for some inscrutable reason, editing "on my side." Ah, the joys of Wikipedia! Alephb (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"those lists of non-Latin script words that Bedrock/יבריב/whoever is so fond of" - As someone who comes to wikipedia to learn about things, I also like to read examples of non-Latin text (assuming it doesn't obscure the rest of the article). I saw one of your reverts in my watchlist, and I was not impressed. So apparently you've taken a dislike to "Bedrock/יבריב/whoever". But please can you keep that little crusade to yourself and not remove content from wikipedia articles for irrelevant reasons in future. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 11:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Woscafrench, I would not mean to imply that non-Latin scripts don't belong on Wikipedia. It's that this persistent sockpuppet has a history of incompetently editing those non-Latin script / transliteration bits. When a user appears evading a block, and continues doing the same old stuff, it's pretty common to mass-revert their contributions, which in the case of this user tend to be unsourced and added by the hundreds. If you, on the other hand, or any other editor in good standing, wants to add helpful well-sourced stuff to articles, in Latin script or any other, I would have no problem with that. I don't know if you're at all familiar with Hebrew, Woscafrench, but if you are, this user was repeatedly replacing patachs with "o"'s in the "Tiberian" section of Hebrew transliterations. With that kind of editing history, it means that when the user suddenly adds 100 cuneiform equivalents to fifty different articles, there is no way to know which are right and which are wrong. That's why the edit-warring guidelines, for instance, have an exemption for reverting the contributions of block evaders.
When this banned editor's new IPs show up, it's not usually me that has problems with it first. The editor winds up getting reverted by all sorts of different editors, who don't realize they're dealing with a sock-puppet, and then it winds up fighting with these various editors. While you may view this as a "little crusade," I view it as pretty routine Wikipedia clean-up. Alephb (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Also did short block on dynamic IP 69.113.182.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which geolocated next door to the list IP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Last named sock blocked on Jan 20, and there were a couple of block-evading IP socks over the next couple of days. This account was created on Jan 23 per its contribs and went right back into the subjects that the last sock and IPs was working on, namely massacres of Jews in Eastern Europe. The recreated Zalishchyky tragedy which had been deleted as the product of a block-violating sock, and created Nepokryte tragedy. Their writing style is the same as the last sock, using long quotes giving witness statements. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]


29 January 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Jiten talk contribs 17:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

04 February 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User:יבריב was blocked a little less than two weeks ago for being a sock of User:BedrockPerson, and has since come back in a variety of IP and other forms, as can be seen here: [94]. This is the latest reincarnation. All of its edits are to articles previously edited by יבריב, and the edits are to the same thing, transliterations of Hebrew names for biblical figures, where BedrockPerson has some unusual ideas at odds with MOS:HE. As you can see here [95], the edits of the newest IP are all to articles that יבריב had been working within the last month. A glance at יבריב's user contributions [96] also shows that the MO is the same -- rapidly altering the transliterations of the names of biblical figures in quick succession, without edit summaries. Alephb (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have the same thing from Special:Contributions/2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:7F. Alephb (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
User:GeneralizationsAreBad, is that going to apply just to the first IP mentioned in this report, or to the other one that has sprung up too? Alephb (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08 February 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Back again, under yet another IP. It's not a new IP for BedrockPerson — it was blocked after Bedrock's first SPI in January 2017: [97].

As has been discussed at length in previous BedrockPerson investigations, Bedrock focuses on issues involving the spelling of non-English (especially Hebrew) words, and on pages relating to Judaism and Jews.

The editor interactions show a striking number of articles in common: Zalischyky, Portal:Current events/2017 April 29, Portal talk:Current events/2017, North Country Reform Temple, List of founders of religious traditions, Maimonides, Schism, Yahweh, Deborah, Ish-bosheth, David, Solomon's Temple, Saul, Template:Middle Eastern deities.

The IP was quiet for over a year, and is now active again starting February 6th, starting with vandalism at Abraham Kerem: [98]. Next, a talk page comment on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic etymology: [99].

Following the ban of another Bedrock Sock, this one picks up a conversation that one left: [100]. Adds a transliteration to Rachel: [101]. Then messes with a transliteration at Joktan, continuing where previous block-evading IP's at that page left off: [102]. Alephb (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Here's an older edit, in which the IP explicitly claims to be BedrockPerson: [103].

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 Behavioural evidence is compelling plus the talk page admission listed above. Blocked for one month. Ben MacDui 20:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

28 February 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


BedrockPerson appears to be back today, under two separate accounts. As with his most recent significant reincarnation, User:יבריב, the two accounts are titled in Hebrew and share Bedrock/יבריב's special interest in Judaism, Jews, and characters from the Hebrew Bible.

Likewise, both users share the previously-noticed pattern of adding unsourced information to multiple infoboxes of Hebrew-Bible-related characters in rapid-fire fashion usually without edit-summaries. The two users show serious overlap with each other, as well — both arrived today and are editing a number of the same articles: [104].

BedrockPerson was blocked for the repeated addition of unsourced dates to the infoboxes of biblical characters who were alleged to have lived before roughly 1000 BCE [105], among other behavioral issues. Here's חיים 11} adding unsourced dates to the infoboxes of biblical characters who lived before roughly 1000 BCE: [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114].

יניב הורון shares יבריב interest in massacres involving Jews in the former Soviet Union: [115]. Alephb (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@Alephb: Please use the suspected socks' actual usernames, not English translations, or alternatively, define them at the outset. Also, חיים 11 is older than the master, which requires additional scrutiny to justify a check, but in any event obviously didn't "arrive[] today". --Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've got the transliterations removed and replaced with the original Hebrew. You're right -- I did misread חיים 11's history. It is older than Bedrock. This is odd, because חיים 11's recent editing spree after a long history of silence shows strong resemblances to יניב הורון and engages in an extremely specific pattern of behavior associated with BedrockPerson's ban. Alephb (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This account admitted to being BedrockPerson on en.wikt, but we decided to give him a second chance out of hopes that he could redeem himself. Unfortunately, he proved unable to learn to improve the quality of his work. I thought I should do you all the favour of popping in to tell you when we've found another one, although I've not familiar with WP bureaucracy, so I may have done this wrong. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and his IPs tend to be stable over surprisingly long periods of time, so you should give them longer blocks. For example, Special:Contributions/47.20.180.99 was blocked after an investigation here but is once again actively editing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

04 April 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Edits match banned sock puppet User:AncientEgypt23's edits a couple weeks ago here. I've been unable to find anything similar in the literature, so I'm guessing it's coming from the same person.

Editor is evidently experienced and making a point of generating huge numbers of edits very quickly. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Later note, adding 2nd IP. More edits, apparently from the same person, different mobile IP vendor: [116], [117] and others. Similar interests and expertise, immediately set out to re-instate the removed edits. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later note, adding 3rd IP. Evidently the same person on my talk page with a 3rd IP, committed several vandalism edits which were reverted before going onto my talk page and continuing the conversation. All from the same geographical area which matches BedrockPerson. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

11 April 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Popping in again from Wiktionary to tell you about another sock we noticed and blocked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
This seems to be the same editor as IP 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:0/64 , which was blocked globally [118] from Wikimedia by @Tegel:. He's continuing conversations and edits started under banned IPs, now as Likethewaves, see: [119] vs. [120] vs. [121].

Tarl N. (discuss) 16:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked that nobody has bothered to block these accounts yet. If sockpuppet investigations don't result in any action, how can we get someone's attention to deal with this? @Bbb23: —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s another one we recently blocked at Wiktionary. The pages edited overlap, and many of the editing quirks are the same (adding Akkadian and Hebrew cognates everywhere, refusing to use dedicated headword templates, adding copious hieroglyphic text but getting many glyphs wrong, etc.) Vorziblix (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

24 June 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Caught and blocked at en.wikt by a local CU, reporting so you guys can block as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

05 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Doug Weller talk 11:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

CU confirmed,  Blocked and tagged 65.51.188.59 also blocked. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Just letting you know what we've turned up at Wiktionary: Semitisms' editing style and choice of language to edit were very suggestive (this is the only duck I know of that quacks in Ancient Phoenician...), so I checkusered their account. I found it to be technically indistinguishable from some of the edits of recent socks, and also from some edits by UkraineCityNameRepository that showed up while I was looking for any other socks. Looking at their edits here, I see their typical opinionated rudeness and incompetent sloppiness Chuck Entz (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
@Bbb23:  Done Apologies for the delay. Green Giant (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08 September 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Already identified and blocked at en.wikt. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:25, 8 September 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]

15 February 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Word for word recreation of Jok'Obama previously by Brobt and Zalishchyky_tragedy by TragedyUkraine CUPIDICAE💕 19:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

29 September 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same topic area; motive exists to evade WP:3RR on Temple in Jerusalem dispute; condescending tone in edit summaries and talk pages; 7-article overlap after 18 edits by IP. Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice an affinity with User:GPinkerton so perhaps this bears a CheckUser after all. Elizium23 (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a new SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GPinkerton based on evidence gathered and account age of master. Elizium23 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Coinciding with WP:V dispute at Shabbat, this IP has begun to add {{cn}} tags to Latin terms on Catholic-related articles. (Elizium23, Zhomron's adversary in this dispute, edits such articles as my main topic area.) I suspect that Zhomron is editing logged-out to avoid scrutiny of these edits, as Zhomron immediately resorted to logged-out editing in a prior dispute at Temple in Jerusalem. Elizium23 (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The supporting evidence of the IP beginning in 211. was linked to a different user following a separate accusation levied against me by the same user. Pinging the user @Spicy: who investigated last time. Zhomron (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

06 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Interest in Hebrew etymology and disregard for WP:V editing while 47.20.177.163 is blocked and User:Zhomron is logged out. Elizium23 (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy,
  • @EdJohnston semi-protected Almah for a month after my WP:AN3 report; thank you, Ed.
  • I am still compiling evidence on Zhomron and I am not prepared to file that case yet.
    • Since SPIs must be filed under the master (i.e., oldest account), and
    • CheckUser cannot be used in the case of IP addresses,
    • I considered it proper to file this IPv6 sockpuppet under the presumed master account, because any connection whatsoever will be behavioral, and SPIs should address the sockmaster.
Elizium23 (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DatGuy
Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Few notes:
    • If you believe Zhomron is a sock of BedrockPerson you should add them to the case, not mention it as your proof this IP is BedrockPerson LOUTsocking.
    • [122] is ridiculous. What sort of attention do you think you're denying Zhomron, or better yet why are those edits examples of attention seeking?
    • Your requests for page protection are equally ridiculous.
    • Looking at the rest of your contributions, it seems a IBAN between you and Zhomron may be appropriate, regardless of whether Zhomron is a BedrockPerson sock. Your edits have been disruptive to Wikipedia.
I'm not sure what way RoySmith used to confirm the IP at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhomron/Archive#02 November 2022, but pinging in case the method is still possible with this IP. DatGuyTalkContribs 11:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my comment in 02 November 2022, that was based entirely on behavioral evidence, i.e. looking for similarities in their edit histories. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. This is getting ridiculous. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: yes, when you WP:FORUMSHOP at enough places eventually you're likely going to get your wish. Your "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is equally not a very good attempt. I'm also unsure why you slapped Zhomron with a ARBEE alert but I may have missed some edits to that topic.
"I considered it proper to file this IPv6 sockpuppet under the presumed master account, because any connection whatsoever will be behavioral" - but where's your behavioural evidence to link the IP to BedrockPerson? All I see is your evidence to link them to Zhomron. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Primary topics in common: ancient Semitic linguistics, etymology, scripts (Akkadian, Hebrew, Phoenician). Hebrew bible topics. Ancient inscriptions. Trait of condescending dismissiveness of other editors: BedrockPerson BedrockPerson; Zhomron Zhomron Zhomron. Ignores WP:V to add unsourced information: BedrockPerson Zhomron Zhomron Frequentyl omits edit summaries for major edits: BedrockPerson BedrockPerson; Zhomron Zhomron. Zhomron gets prickly and rather threatening to people who left warnings on talk page. BedrockPerson's socks are busy. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Topic overlap is not sufficiently unique. I see somewhat similar timecards, and a few interesting similarities (e.g. [123][124], [125][126][127], [128][129][130][131][132], [133][134]). None of this is enough to act on it, but should be enough for a check. MarioGom (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - The Zhomron-BedrockPerson similarity has been investigated before, with no definite conclusion. The bottom line in my mind is there's tons of editing overlap, but it's really no more than could be explained by two people with a passion for Jewish topics. There are some technical similarities too, but again, nothing that can't be explained as two people who both live in an area where lots of Jews live. I have noticed some behavioral similarities that for WP:BEANS reasons I'll divulge only to a clerk or admin who wants to investigate this further.
From a CU perspective, BedrockPerson hasn't edited in years, and all of the other accounts in the archive are stale. So, IMHO, there's not much point in running additional checks. I do notice that another CU has run a check recently (which is fine); I assume if they had noticed anything interesting they would have said something, so I really think further CU is a dead end in this case (i.e. it's not magic WP:PIXIEDUST). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18 December 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Interest matches ancient languages such as Biblical Hebrew. Editing whilst logged-out to avoid scrutiny in edit-war over WP:V. Sockmaster likes to use condescending terms such as "pointless" in edit summaries. Elizium23 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: it's another Korean IP - proxy/VPN? Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

23 December 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Jumped into the dispute on non-English names and further back and baiting me with tit for tat. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy said, "VPNGate IPs editing Jewish topics are probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/יניב הורון." Elizium23 (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, @RoySmith said "no doubt ... this is User:Zhomron" so perhaps I keep filing these in the wrong place. Elizium23 (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23 help me out here with a link to where I said that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zhomron SPI Elizium23 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Additional information needed. @Elizium23: I'm pretty familiar with this sockmaster, but I'm not seeing the obvious tells here. Furthermore, this is a static IP on the wrong continent that doesn't show up as a proxy in Spur. But not impossible for Spur to be wrong. Could you please explain what makes you think this is Yaniv, rather than someone organically coming into conflict with you? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving from יניב הורון to Zhomron; will resolve momentarily. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Roy's findings in November that the IP is Zhomron beyond a reasonable doubt. I find no evidence that there's any connection to Yaniv Horon; wrong kind of IP, wrong modus operandi, and most importantly, doesn't make sense given that this IP has already been tied to Zhomron. Now, diffs 2 through 4 predate the last block, so are not actionable. Diff 1 postdates it, as do a few dozen other edits. Diff 1 shows Zhomron using this IP to revert an edit by Elizium, an editor with whom they have previously been in conflict, incorrectly labeling it as vandalism. (Full disclosure: I have expressed the view in the past—as a passing admin not involved in any underlying dispute—that similar edits by Elizium have been disruptive; nonetheless, they are not vandalism, and in any case not an excuse for loutsocking.) Given the past block of the IP and warning on the account, and the apparent use of logged-out editing to evade scrutiny once more, I am blocking the IP for 2 years, since that's how long Zhomron's been on it, and am blocking Zhomron for a month. Zhomron, please understand that further violations of the sockpuppetry policy will likely lead to an indefinite block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

These have all been confirmed and CU-blocked by NinjaRobotPirate (answering to an ANI report [135] by Antiquistik), with a note that Zhomron themselves may be a sockpuppet of BedrockPerson (cf. also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BedrockPerson/Archive#11 November 2022).

There is nothing left to do and this report may be summarily closed, I just thought it wise to note this incident here for the archives. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BedrockPerson/Archive&oldid=1134727141"