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

Suspected sockpuppets

• RodolfoMita (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Albert-Kraft (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RobertoBozzi (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 200.61.154.180 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)}

Seems to be a tag-team of existing and new single-purpose accounts intent on re-adding coverage of Oscar Bonello back to various articles to do with audio; I believe this is meat-puppeting by his various students/co-workers.

Lots of this material was originally added by Bonello himself as OscarJuan (talk · contribs); I'm not sure if he still has anything to do with this (see also WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/OscarJuan).

Evidence is the contribution histories of the above accounts; should speak for itself. In particular, see the attempt at canvassing by RobertTanzi (talk · contribs), e.g. [1], [2]. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For specific diffs, see, for instance:

• these two edits on my talk page within 10 minutes of each other (by RobertTanzi, by RodolfoMita).
• This edit ([3]) by RodolfoMita to restore this removed comment from RobertTanzi ([4]).
• This sequence of edits within 3 days, all to reinstate the same material at MP3 (by Albert-Kraft, by RobertoBozzi, by RobertTanzi, by RodolfoMita)

But, again, their respective edit histories should be indicative, as none of them has made edits other than to do with Oscar Bonello. RobertTanzi (talk · contribs) began editing again (after 7 months of inactivity) just a couple of days after I began removing some of this material, the account of RodolfoMita (talk · contribs) was created just one day later. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• How does canvassing apply to sockpuppetry? Could you do me a favor and list the diffs that you see demonstrate these accounts are socks? Another admin may review before then, but giving us diffs will ensure quicker review/action on the case. (provided your diffs/evidence is concise). —— nixeagle^{email me} 04:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested above, I believe this is meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry. RobertTanzi (talk · contribs) has explicitly canvassed for people to join his efforts. As for specific diffs, I've added them above. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• Its clear to me that: RodolfoMita (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) == RobertoBozzi (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) == RobertTanzi (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).
  • Ex: RobertTanzi edit and RodolfoMita edit : note the "Dear ..." bit in both posts by both accounts.
  • Similar edit patterns in the edit summaries and the fact the accounts starting with roberto revert to the same revision without fail indicate that they are the same user.
• 200.61.154.180 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - I have no clue how this got added or on what evidence. I don't see any relation or edits to the affected articles.
• Albert-Kraft (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - is a meat puppet, especially as his only 3 edits are to that article and that account has prior knowledge of a conversation. However the account refers to Roberto Bozzi in the third person and uses different phrasing.

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

I have blocked all sockpuppets indef. Could another admin review and do something with the meat puppet? After that please tag/close —— nixeagle^{email me} 16:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Suspected sockpuppets

• ErnestoVicente (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Albert-Kraft (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)}

Albert-Kraft already identified as a meat-puppet in a recent SPI case (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi/Archive), and warned accordingly ([5]).

Has made another similar edit since warning ([6]) (similar in the sense of still overly-promoting Oscar Bonello). Within 15 minutes, the account of ErnestoVicente was created, and made another pro-Bonello edit to the MP3 article ([7]).

I'm beginning to believe these are all socks rather than meats, because of, for instance, their method of referring to the talk page sections in their edit summaries (e.g. ErnestoVicente, RobertoBozzi, RobertTanzi.)

Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 10:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

•  Clerk note: Moving case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albert-Kraft, should be here instead. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 10:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I see large similarities between the style of edit summaries in ErnestoVicente's edits and RobertTanzi's, but I don't see any in Albert-Kraft's. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 10:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, Albert-Kraft hasn't used this summary style. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 10:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

ErnestoVicente is a sock, blocked by PeterSymonds. Meanwhile, Albert-Kraft will be kept an eye on, but for now is unblocked. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce!

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

---

Suspected sockpuppets

• RodolfMita (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Binksternek (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• R.Tanzi (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BetoVinci (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AlfredoRobles (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)}

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi/Archive. Two new accounts created within 30 minutes of each other to continue the disruption.

RodolfMita is a fairly obvious "continuation" account of RodolfoMita (talk · contribs). Binksternek is some kind of straw man set up to imitate Binksternet (talk · contribs) (NOTE: I do not believe that Binksternet is anything to do with this; he's an existing respected editor). See e.g. the trio of edits between them (RodolfMita, Binksternek, RodolfMita), and compare with e.g. that of ErnestoVicente (talk · contribs) ([8]).

Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another (R.Tanzi (talk · contribs)) - see ([9]). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jusr added another (AlfredoRobles (talk · contribs)) - edit almost identical to that of BetoVinci (talk · contribs) (see below) ([10] and ([11]), and within 1/2 an hour of each other. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Blocked the two listed accounts as socks. Its pretty obvious. Perhaps we should consider asking a checkuser to do a block on the underlying IP addresses currently being used. BTW a clerk should tag the two blocked accounts. —— nixeagle^{email me} 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would guess 200.61.154.180 (talk · contribs); an account listed in original SPI but not blocked. Traceroute takes us to South America, where all of this trouble originally stemmed from! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note:Accounts Tagged — Jake Wartenberg 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: R.Tanzi is a pretty obvious and blatant sock. Keeping case open to wait for a passing admin to block. Mayalld (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one here:

BetoVinci (talk · contribs).

I imagine he'll keep this up for a while. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: Blocked R.Tanzi (talk · contribs) as a pretty obvious sock. Also blocked AlfredoRobles (talk · contribs) as a sock due to evidence presented above. Reset RobertTanzi (talk · contribs)'s block length to a month due to block evasion and left note to cut it out or will be indef next time. KnightLago (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

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

---

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.76.196.59 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.25.179.117 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 38.99.170.158 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)}

RobertTanzi (et al) was indef blocked due to previous sockpuppeting (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertTanzi/Archive). Now clearly evading block via proxies or similar. See e.g. the following edits (RobertTanzi, 94.76.196.59, 85.25.179.117).

Is there a better place to report block evasion? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added 38.99.170.158 (talk · contribs). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

•  Clerk note: The prior cases seem to have established that RobertTanzi is editing from South America, whilst these IPs are in the UK, Germany and Canada. Whilst the reporter has acknowledged this discrepancy, and suggested that proxies are involved, I can find no evidence of proxies being used, and the reporter has presented none. Furthermore, the language used by RobertTanzi and his known socks in edit summaries has a number of distinctive traits which are not present in the edit summaries used by any of these IPs. Mayalld (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Delisted for the reasons stated above. Mayalld (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mayalld (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---