Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | ChronicalUsual


ChronicalUsual

08 February 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


   Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. ChronicalUsual (talk · contribs) created the article Syria civil war, which is at AfD; ChronicalUsual !votes "Totally Oppose and absolute Keep" [1]; then SpyroSpeedruns (talk · contribs) comes along a bit later...and !votes "Totally Oppose and absolute Keep" [2]. HeyBilout (talk · contribs) is created and its first edit is to !vote in the AfD [3]. Aginsijib (talk · contribs) is not as ducky but raises an eyebrow as immediately after creation he/she dove into the article in question and also !voted almost immediately. SpyroSpeedruns already blocked per WP:DUCK, requesting CU to confirm the others and to check for sleepers which seems quite likely to me (Spyro, for instance, was created a few weeks ago before popping up today). The Bushranger One ping only 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
25 February 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

After repeated disruptive editing on content related to the Arab Spring, including [4] [5] [6] WikiHounding me after I opened up a deletion discussion for a fork he created that ended with the article's merge and deletion, User:ChronicalUsual was blocked from editing on 16 February 2012. After he verbally attacked the blocking administrator, the block was extended, per [7], at 14:18, 16 February 2012. At 16:20, 16 February 2012, User:Grimso5 became active. His first act as an editor was to create a fork for one of ChronicalUsual's favorite topics, alleged discrimination against Alawites by the Syrian opposition. This page was soon moved to a less POV title. At 16:46, 16 February 2012, User:FavorLaw became active. His first edit was to Syria, reverting an edit I made. Several edits later, he recreated the Alawite discrimination page fork that Grimso5 had originally made. At this time, Grimso5 had become inactive. FavorLaw has proceeded to make a number of content edits, many of which have been challenged, with a clear POV bias against the Syrian opposition (a favored bugbear of ChronicalUsual), including: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Other ducky evidence includes the misspelling of "Iraq" as "Irak", as well as its lack of capitalization; compare [13] and the edit summary in [14]. Also notably, all three accounts obviously have Wikipedia expertise; all three have created pages; ChronicalUsual and FavorLaw have participated on Talk pages, participated in move and deletion discussions, etc.; but all three but have chosen not to create userpages. FavorLaw also attacked User:Sopher99 and User:Lord Roem, both established editors who are clearly not socks, in what appears to be a classic attempt to deflect Sopher99's reasonable suspicion that FavorLaw is an unreported sock: [15] [16] Based on the evidence available, I think it's reasonable to suspect FavorLaw and probably Grimso5 are socks of ChronicalUsual created to allow him to dodge a weeklong block, continue trying to push an anti-Syrian opposition POV on Arab Spring content, and harass editors like me, User:Goltak, and User:Sopher99 who had previously sparred with him. Kudzu1 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acatalwayslandsonitsfeet just registered and its only contributions so far have been to Syria and Libya content, pushing a POV similar to the blocked editors: [17] [18] [19] Based on the username and the edits, I'm reasonably suspicious it's the same editor, so I'm asking it be checked before this case is closed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

ChronicalUsual himself is an account solely created for the purpose of escaping a ban

ChronicalUsual's real account was User:FreemanSA, which is still a sockaccount of Geromasis (talk · contribs), Geromasis was banned for edit warring.

I am 100% certain that ChronicalUsual is FreemanSA, who created FreemanSA immediately after Geromasis was banned. FreemanSA then got banned, leading to the creation of ChronicalUsual. ChronicalUsual created another account to escape his 1 week ban ,User:FavorLaw. This person has been a constant engager in edit wars, particularly during the editing 2011 Libyan civil war and now the Syrian uprising. I believe he uses different ips to escape bans though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Geromasis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FreemanSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChronicalUsual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FavorLaw

Zenithfel (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

This SPI was rather unpopular with CUs it seems. I think that's because of the report made it comparatively hard to see the evidence that would warrant a check. It is usually more helpful to be a bit more concise (if possible), listing the strongest evidence first, maybe use bulletpoints, or at least a line break or two.
Anyway,   Confirmed the same are:

Amalthea 18:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acatalwayslandsonitsfeet is   Confirmed, now using an open proxy. Blocked and tagged. Amalthea 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have increased ChronicalUsual's block to three weeks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
01 March 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


I think ChronicalUsual is back again. Can we get the Sockpuppet investigation open again?
user:SuperMaher
SuperMaher was created just 2 hours after chronical was banned, and he is already an expert on how the Syrian uprising is a foreign conspiracy. Sopher99 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to new section by The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

User:ChronicalUsual has stated his intention on his Talk page to continue evading blocks: [20] I strongly suspect User:SuperMaher is his latest sock. His first edit was to create a page for a self-declared jihadist group claiming to violently oppose the Syrian government. One of ChronicalUsual's favorite tactics was to edit articles to suggest the Syrian government is only responding to "terrorists" while editing out information to the contrary; SuperMaher appears to be doing the same. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChronicalUsual is going to come back forever in this way unless there is a way to ban or inhibit his use of the proxy server. With the proxy server he can create many many accounts. Sopher99 (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
17 March 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Both editors clearly have knowledge of how to edit Wikipedia. Like ChronicalUsual, both use bare URLs in citations offset by an extra space after the period. User:RomanceBad's first edit was to create a page for a new opposition group in Syria talking about how it represents divisions in the opposition, one of ChronicalUsual's favorite subjects. AgAzaw has only edited the page 2012 insurgency in northern Mali, on which ChronicalUsual was very active prior to his block. I believe ChronicalUsual, whose politics seem to be decidedly left-wing, is a French-speaker; AgAzaw cited a far-left French newspaper in making a POV edit suggesting the Malian government employs mercenaries. Accusing factions he does not like of using mercenaries is a favorite ChronicalUsual strategy for discrediting them dating back at least to his time as User:FreemanSA and User:Geromasis on the page currently known as Libyan civil war. There's no smoking gun here that I see, but it's all very ducky. Kudzu1 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Confirmed that

match previously blocked sock ImpossibleBehavior (talk · contribs). Amalthea 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 March 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


New users apparently just going around reverting edits I've made to previous pages. ChronicalUsusl did the same thing to User:Sopher99 after he got some of this disruptive blocked editors' socks banned. Kudzu1 (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Confirmed the following are all the same:

05 May 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
I don't think I need any explanation at this point. Sopher99 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name itself is biased and it is a new account that has been POV pushing. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be targeting User:Goltak now. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More of his socks. Sopher99 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Sopher99 abd his group are simply accusing every new user who are not strictly aligned with them on this sensible subject. I am reading the page since time ago and I noticed it again and again. Here are another exemple of a new user being immediately accused by Sopher99 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual, here another user on the same page say that Sopher99 is biased and should not edit this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_uprising_%282011%E2%80%93present%29&diff=490478234&oldid=490467798

More: This is what administrator Meowy write about Sopher99 :


"It is nothing personal. I'm just astonished at the content of some of your article talk page and user talk page statements, and that you have got away with making them without any sanctions. I've been around a lot of articles that have generated heat, but I have NEVER seen a case of an editor POV-pushing in such an open and unabashed and sustained way. I suppose it is good that you are not being deceptive by trying to hide your lack of neutrality and impartiality (deceivers are generally not nice people) but it is not the correct attitude to have when editing an encyclopaedia article"


"I'm not going to cherry-pick your choicest comments (especially since I suspect you will like them) but they all show that there is a strong pov that you are pushing, over-the-top statements like "The Syrian government is a ludicrous bunch of Saddam Hussein figures, nothing more"."


"You know nothing at all about Syria. Your edits on Wikipedia that are connected to Syria begin and end with the "2011-2012 Syrian Uprising" article and its related fork articles. If you had any deep interest in and understanding about Syria you would have been editing other Syria-related articles and would have been doing it further back than 2011 - but you have done nothing like that. Probably you had never even heard of Syria until last year, but now, all whipped up with fake indignation fueled by whatever propaganda news channel you watch, you think you are an instant expert on Syria! Go back to watching Fox News and leave Wikipedia alone"

"I think it might be time to take the issue to administrators, the single-issue editing aims of Sopher99, and his simplistic attitude to editing, do not contribute to a good article and are skewing it into an embarassing propaganda piece full of ugly POVs" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.159.142 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Meowy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.159.142 (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...since when did Meowy become an "administrator"? Pretty sure you're wrong there, buddy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it just turns out that every new user happens to be a sock of chronicalusual. The Checkusers have confirmed this. Also what described is Meowy's opinion. For example, he think I listen to fox news, yet I have never cited fox news once on wikipedia my entire life. I am removing that large section of quotations from meowy from this page, because this page is about sock puppets of Chronicalusual, not about the edits of user Sopher99 Sopher99 (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC
On another note Sopher99, how is Fox News not a reliable source? That's like saying Wikipedia isn't. Fox News is reliable for everything except American politics where it is biased right-wing. Most other American news sources are biased left-wing except maybe CNN. MSNBC is completely and totally left-wing. Jacob102699 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Meowy said that I listened to fox news (which I don't), keeping in line with the "western Propaganda" theory. Sopher99 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's BS, Chronical. There are editors who have been active on Syria pages whose politics are clearly different from Sopher99's, like User:FunkMonk, User:TaalVerbeteraar, and others, who haven't been accused of wrongdoing by him or others because they're clearly not socks of an indef blocked disruptive POV warrior. This SPI isn't about Sopher99's edits or anyone else's, and you know it. You were blocked, and every account you create is a violation of community guidelines. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Klavisioni is doing some major edit warring and POV pushing on the main Syrian uprising page. Please block him, at least for edit warring before the checkuser. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Klavisioni looks very ducky to me. Quack, quack. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an Austrian IP user active at 149.154.159.142. Said editor made a couple of nonsense edits to an unrelated page and has since contributed exclusively to pages on which ChronicalUsual and socks are active, including removing a speedy delete template from an article created by the sock Klavisioni. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've notived CU has seemed to be active in Bahrain too and has a proxy server so we can't ban him. Jacob102699 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/149.154.159.142

And according to the diff at 17:06 May 2, he thinks he already knows me. Sopher99 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "Syrian opposition activist" epithet. An old CU standby. You should be so flattered. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
21 May 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Looks awfully ducky. New editor active almost exclusively on Syria content. RorionGracie characteristically doesn't sign Talk contributions, characteristic lack of userpage, characteristic accusations toward other editors of "vandalizing". Kudzu1 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

To help facilitate the investigation, could you provide diffs that show the connection between this account and previous ones? TNXMan 14:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17 September 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

DanielUmel was blocked for 1 week yesterday by User:Black Kite for "edit-warring across multiple articles" and "misrepresentation of sources" to promote a pro-Assad point of view in articles relating to the Syrian civil war—virtually the only topic area he ever edited in. No resistance to or acknowledgement of this sanction has been made by Daniel on his talkpage. However, shortly after the block, a number of new accounts have cropped up to push a POV disparaging of the Syrian opposition (Merittitle00 ("carnage", note also the precocious use of a citation template) Merittitle00 (casting doubt on opposition claims via citation-needed template TartatindeTaras (casting doubt on opposition claims) TartarindeTaras (dead rebels) Firasker ("jihadists") Firasker ("armed group")) and revert (FabianMarker FabianMarker TartarindeTaras) users with whom Daniel frequently edit-warred.

FabianMarker was blocked shortly after showing up by User:Materialscientist for "block evasion" and editing through an open proxy. I suspect that the listed accounts are used similarly, so the CU may be in vain. However, I find this sudden proliferation of newly-created accounts all editing in a very similar manner to be very suspicious. They seem to be throwaway accounts, created in rapid succession with no time overlap to avoid scrutiny—though they all have edited Battle of Aleppo (2012). Given the small amount of edits for each new account, there isn't much to go off of in that regard, but I think that the editing patterns and the circumstances are telling. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.....wow. That has to be one of the biggest sock-farms I have ever seen. Salvio, could those accounts not conclusively linked to the main puppeteer be on open proxies (like FabianMarker)? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to this site, the IP address they used to edit appears to belong to a university (in a different country, as I mentioned earlier). Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, interesting. Meatpuppets, maybe? I think that, pending indef-blocks and closure, a ban discussion for ChronicalUsual may be in order. This sort of sock-farming is ludicrous. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, meatpuppetry is certainly a possibility! Regarding the ban proposal, I'd say this guy is already de facto banned and no admin is going to unblock him, so a de jure ban is something of a merely bureaucratic move, but if you propose a ban, I'll support it. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Should I go ahead and tag the socks as well? (I think indefs are still needed, though; see e.g. Loosmark's sock-farm). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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

I believe DanielUmel is the newest account of User:ChronicalUsual who had made over 50 sock accounts to vandalize things in a pro assad manner, and promised to return in the future. I think this is him. Sopher99 (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I am just ... shocked. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be. I think you're someone who edits and contributes in good faith -- even though I frequently disagree with you -- but a lot of people on your side really aren't. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Why am I not surprised. I7laseral (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
16 October 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


this account appeared after the useR DanielUmel (talk · contribs) was blocked Alhanuty (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this account also trying to make syrian civil war artilcles pro-government,doing the same as he did in his blocked account DanielUmel (talk · contribs)

Comments by other users
edit

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

Quack, quack. User also displays the same linguistic tics as ChronicalUsual. English is obviously not his first language. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not so sure. Chronical-Daniel displayed a more Francophone manner of speech, whereas Dimitrish exhibits more eastern European idiosyncrasies. Nevertheless, it isn't that hard to adopt a cartoonish "in Soviet Russia" linguistic disguise, and the POV being pushed is similar enough to warrant some concern. I'm not thoroughly convinced that he is the same, but I think that a checkuser should be done to allay the concerns here, given the scale of the sockpuppetry by C-D, his possible use of meatpuppets and proxy IPs, and his expressed intent to return to his old shenanigans. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think these accounts are not the same person. There's very little similarity in style and language between the two accounts, in my opinion. I'm unable to detect similar linguistic "tics" (good phrase) and in fact see completely different tics in their styles. That said, it's also very obvious that Dimitrish81 wasn't a new editor - but perhaps they started editing on a different language wikipedia? --HighKing (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
29 October 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

A new user who is suddenly an expert on how the Syrian civil war is a conspiracy and goes strait to the talkpage to discuss it? Please.

ChronicalUsual/DanielUmel promised to return. And now that the protection for these pages expired, hes back. Sopher99 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the user-compare toolserver as it was only comparing Chronical with Dimitrish81 for some reason. Sopher99 (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added Dimitrish81 to see if the karim and him are related, which I don't think so. Sopher99 (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

I checked Karim226's contributions. Seems like he's a new user who's only interested in the Syrian civil war. I do think this is suspicious, although I'm not entirely sure.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike me, you haven't encountered all 65 of ChronicalUsuals sockpuppets who started out the same way. Your relatively new to the Syrian pages. Sopher99 (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Shrug* True. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, does this match or come close to any of the ranges used by the suspected meatpuppets caught in the DanielUmel case (e.g. User:Merittitle00 or User:Tyei1111)? Is this account editing via proxy? I'm not surprised that this doesn't match Chronical's user data; he seems a pretty sharp and tech-savvy guy and would have to be very sloppy to get caught in the same ___location—or as the same individual—so soon after such a large bust as the one last month.

Based on reading the limited text that this user has posted for "linguistic tics", I'm leaning away from declaring Karim to be the master himself. Nevertheless, something isn't quite kosher here. A straight-to-talkpage disruptive SPA throws up a major red flag. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Dimitrish is related here. Karim is at least intelligible in his posts. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merittitle00 (talk · contribs) and Tyei1111 (talk · contribs) are in the same continent as CU and Dimitri, though they geolocate to very different parts thereof. I'm sorry, but, in this case, the CU tool is of little use... Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. What would be necessary to demonstrate evidence of meatpuppetry in a case as this? Of course it'd be behavioural, but how can meatpuppetry be distinguished from run-of-the-mill disruptive editing? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a difficult question, because I don't want to be WP:BEANSy and, at the same time, I wouldn't want to block an innocent newbie as a meat and because meatpuppetry is something to be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, if an editor is making edits which are at their core similar to those made by CU, to the same set of articles CU edited, then I'd say a block is probably warranted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't surprise me at all if CU isn't a "lone wolf" but is part of a small group dedicated to making mischief on sites like Wikipedia. The existence of the so-called "Syrian Electronic Army" is well known; I'm not suggesting CU is part of anything so official or government-sanctioned, but we know that pro-regime elements as well as Arab liberal and Islamist elements are at least aware of the importance of organized Web/social media activity in promoting "the cause". At any rate, unfortunately, we also know that CU has used an open proxy in the past to evade CheckUser and avoid IP blocks. That can't be ruled out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I wasn't aware of the Syrian Electronic Army; in light of this and of the disruption caused by CU and his merry band of socks and meats, probably the best way forward is to ask the community to impose the standard set of discretionary sanctions on all pages pertaining to the Arab Spring... It will not solve all problems, but it would give a bit more leeway to the admins dealing with disruptive editors... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that WP:DISCSANC were imposed by ArbCom only, or? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is at least one precedent... Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
31 October 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Syria-obsessed SPA editors who have adopted one of the old CU tricks of bluelinking their user page (and, in User:Johnswk's case, Talk page) with a one- or two-word basic entry. CU socks would be easy to spot because they would have redlinked user pages (CU himself did for a while) and eventually he started changing it up that way to make the socks less obvious. Anyway, I'm just guessing these guys are CU ("Syrianview" sounds like a classic CU sock name, and I'm sure other editors familiar with them will agree), and they're definitely the same person (pushing identical editors, alternating to avoid WP:3RR, both have their username as the only text on their user page, etc.) which is a violation of Wikipedia rules in its own right. Here's an example of their tag-teaming handiwork: [21] [22] -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

At this point, I don't think that Chronical will try to make another permanent "Daniel"-style account anytime in the near future. We're "wise to his shit" at this point, so the only hope he has of avoiding detection are throwaway accounts (like Agreviatorr above) that make one or a few edits before being abandoned. Nevertheless, this is demonstrative of the pervasive disruption on these pages, and I'm really wondering if DISCSANC are the way to go here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it not allowed to sock even if this guy isn't CU? Especially since they've been tag-teaming articles to get around 3RR? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
17 November 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Scant. See: Wikipedia:ANI#User:Deonis 2012. Shirt58 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

No. Not even a tiny chance. This is silly. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I'm new to Wikipedia, having only been here six and a half years, and am ignorant of many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. How do I change my username to "Mister Stoopid Head 58"?  --Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • You have made no effort to back up your case with evidence.   Check declined by a checkuser. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23 January 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Oleg Taktarov was created [23] two minutes after EolexMax was created [24], and both users have removed CSDs/PRODs by MrX, [25][26][27] especially Everything and Nothing: But Referring to Something. [28][29] Not 100% sure though; so I am requesting a CheckUser. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Mr X is obvsiouly lying.Bold text--EolexMax (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  Confirmed with respect to the named user(s).   No comment with respect to IP address(es). In addition, Jolkis Mina (talk · contribs) is   Confirmed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are all ChronicalUsual; so could a clerk, please, move this investigation and tag all socks? Thanks. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again? Good grief, can't this be fixed with a range block? - MrX 00:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asked another CU to impose a rangeblock a couple of days ago, but it did not really help that much; unfortunately, he's using various different ranges and, so, it's difficult to get him... Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24 January 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

I'm back again with two more. (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive#23 January 2013 for yesterday's related incident) The accounts were both created within several minutes of each other, and both accounts went straight over to undo MrX's edits again.[30][31][32] I'm requesting CheckUser to see if there are possibly any others. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Yep. Gebbordi (talk · contribs) as well. FYI, Salvio's been the admin handling this character for a while. He'll "take out the trash" when you point it out to him on his talk, as those of us editing in topic areas plagued by him do. Saves the trouble of re-opening this SPI every 12 hours. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, exactly like Jolkis Mina (talk · contribs) that was caught yesterday. I'm adding it to the list of sock puppets. Thanks also for the note about Salvio. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
07 February 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


self-admission; Already blocked, just noting for posterity. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:52, 7 February 2013 (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

9 April 2013

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

This account also trying to make Syrian civil war artilcles pro-government,doing the same as he did in his blocked account Deonis 2012 (talk · contribs) and his attitude in editing is the very same as of that of deonis2012 ,and his edits are disruptive,and his source aren't reliable,and his sources claims impossible things,and the account was made today,and his last account Saddam 1991 was just blocked 2 weeks ago only Alhanuty (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Probably not Deonis, more likely User:ChronicalUsual. Recommend check on that account.

And Alhanuty, for the love of all that is holy, can you please try to learn how to format things correctly? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

12 April 2013

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Sopher99 (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

10 May 2013

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


he has been edit syrian civil war pages to promote his point of views and his tactics are the same as Chronical usual and other user have discovered that including user sopher99 and EkoGraf,and he is using pro- syrian government source and after all that he is edit warring,I request an investigation for this case. Alhanuty (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Chronical has a history of using ip sock puppets ,and his latest sock puppet Malsius Germon has been blocked one month ago Alhanuty (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2013 (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 November 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


this account just formed yesterday,and this editor is targeting me even that the issue is minor,and chronical was a Russian editor so is this editor,and the weird thing is this editor is editing jut I. The Syrian case,as chronical did Alhanuty (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Definitely a sock of someone (immediately edited to bluelink his/her user page with some nonsense symbols and posted on an administrators' noticeboard as one of his/her first edits), but not seeing a definitive connection to ChronicalUsual. Nonetheless, it seems obvious this is socking behavior of some sort -- this editor clearly is not new to Wikipedia -- so I would endorse Alhanuty's request for CheckUser. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
16 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Seems obvious from the username Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Even if it's not a sock account, it's a pretty trollish username, and the user's editing behavior has been mendacious and non-constructive. And it's probably a sock account. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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/ChronicalUsual/Archive&oldid=1079624673"