Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Pé de Chinelo


Pé de Chinelo

Report date June 21 2009, 00:24 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by chocobogamer mine

This is User Pe De Chinelo, coming back again. Has edited the Best Selling Game article with the same incorrect statements Chinelo made and has reverted an edit on Chinelo's page chocobogamer mine 00:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

  Clerk note: Looks like the IP was the blocked user, but it has not edited in four days so a block at this point would not make sense. I moved this case from under the IP to the master account. If another IP pops up, please refile under this name. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.



Report date July 27 2009, 13:18 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Rolaye With Cheese (Already blocked as a sockpuppet)

200.158.243.90 (already marked on user page as suspected)

Evidence submitted by JamesBWatson


On 26 July 2009 Rolaye With Cheese was blocked as a sockpuppet of Pé de Chinelo.

On 27 July 2009 a new user Crotchety Old Fart started editing. Crotchety Old Fart's edits have been essentially repetitions of edits by Rolaye With Cheese which had been reverted.

This edit [1] is an exact repetition of this one [2], and this [3] is almost a repetition of this [4].

In this post [5] Crotchety Old Fart picks up an argument from where Rolaye With Cheese had got to when blocked.

The user name Crotchety Old Fart is clearly a take off of Crotchety Old Man, who had been responsible for reverting edits by Rolaye With Cheese. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


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 It has been archived automatically.

Blocked/tagged by Tiptoety. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date November 25 2009, 18:22 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit



Evidence submitted by Crotchety Old Man
edit

Another blatantly obvious sock of User:Pé de Chinelo. Got the requisite give-away edit here. The 200.x.x.x and 201.x.x.x IPs are also socks.

Comments by accused parties
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Conclusions
edit
  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date December 2 2009, 22:09 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Crotchety Old Man (talk)

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I added the IPs from the history of List of adventure films of the 2000s. Please undelete User_talk:Pé de Chinelo so we can see the comments made there. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1- All the IPs are the same user:
  • 201.68.139.235 2 December 2009 [6] "Matrix is a good film, you should watch it."
  • 200.161.63.110 2 December 2009 [7] "The matrix is a good aventure series"
  • 201.68.136.237 9 September 2009 [8] "Matrix is a good adventure, you should watch it"
2- One IP makes the same edit as one sock and as the sockmaster
  • 201.68.136.237 9 September 2009 [9] "stubborn guy, tdk [The Dark Knight] is a crime drama not an action"
  • Rolaye With Cheese (sock) 18 July 2009 [10] "The Dark Knight is a crime drama, not an action movie"
  • Pé de Chinelo 1 November 2008 [11] "Not a crime movie, just because it has crime doesn't make it a crime movie, a crime movie is Godfather, Scarface or Pulp Fiction."
It's all a WP:DUCK case, all IPs belong to TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO S.A. - TELESP (searched in lacnic), it's Pe all the time, obsession with making up his own classification of stuff including action/drama films, action/adventure films, and crime/drama films, hitting the same films and topics (but not the same articles), among other behavioural traits. Make a checkuser to catch extra socks. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Pe's talk page restored. MuZemike 07:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

  Clerk note: We're past the rangeblock point here. Also, the abuse seems to be on and off, so I don't think semi-protection is going to do any good here. If anyone else here has any suggestions filter-wise, please discuss (in a nonchalant manner, of course). MuZemike 07:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...unless we can be convinced that all these recent edits in those articles have been by Pe only? MuZemike 07:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we "past the rangeblock point"? That's exactly what I was hoping for. And I don't see how people could not think all these edits are by Pe. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

  Administrator note I'm going to try this:

  1. 200.161.63.110 blocked 1 month.
  2. 201.68.128.0/17 blocked for 1 week.
  3. 201.27.168.0/21 blocked for 1 month.

Don't know what good it's going to do, though. MuZemike 19:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


Pé de Chinelo

Report date December 14 2009, 21:20 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Crotchety Old Man (talk)
Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Next time, Crotchety Old Man, please file the SPI case under the sockmaster's name and not under the IP. Thank you, MuZemike 20:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

  Administrator note 201.68.128.0/17 blocked 1 month. MuZemike 20:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


Report date December 26 2009, 23:37 (UTC)
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Crotchety Old Man (talk)

See here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Given the changing IPs, I have protected the current target page Heat (1995 film) for a few days. Response was this [12]. Despite this, might ever increasing page protection might be one thing to consider? --Slp1 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also discussed at ANI here [13] and rangeblocks enacted as the disruption was continuing from other IPs.--Slp1 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the filer (Crotchety Old Man) today was himself indef'd, for sockpuppeteering and making legal threats. "Takes one to know one"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, adding another IP that has just popped up
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

IPs all blocked by various admins. Blueboy96 15:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
14 October 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by Andrzejbanas
edit

User's contributions here are similar to the edits by User:Pé_de_Chinelo. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
edit

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
edit
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
  •   Clerk note: I've moved the various cases for the IPs into this case. The IPs are in the same range that this sockmaster has operated in before. All of the IPs have been blocked for vandalism, so I'm not sure how much more we can do here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
07 February 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

[14], [15], [16]. This user seems to have sprung up another account and admits to being User:Pé de Chinelo. Most of his comments as of late are bringing up older arguments and attacking me on various pages. This account is also avoiding a ban. Help anyone? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2011 (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
20 February 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

This is a user who has been user and ip hopping back and forth through wikipedia. He reverted my first post of suspecting him as a sockpuppet here. His specific genre edits are very similar and go for similar pages by his other blocked accounts here and here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2011 (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
28 February 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Per admission and threat on my talk page. Given the threat of continuous socking, requesting a checkuser to investigate the possibility of an IP level block. —Kww(talk) 16:44, 28 February 2011 (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

Nothing else found. I'm afraid CU will not be of much assistance here at all, as he is all over the place IP-wise. I don't even think a community ban will discourage him from socking. Sorry. –MuZemike 17:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22 March 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


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

User has been repeatedly disrupting articles such as Little Miss Sunshine ([17]) and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (and its associated talk page) ([18]). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:06, 22 March 2011 (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

The only thing we can do here is liberally semi-protect all pages he hits.

–MuZemike 02:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Similar edits made by BusSDriver and LordXVMon here. I believe he's trying to hide his sockpuppeting by contradicting himself as well as seen here and here. Just by looking at nearly the exact same pages he's editing, he's pretty obviously the same person. Compare LordXVMon, 201.68.137.2, and nearly every reply in the section involving adding the adventure category to Little Miss Sunshine. Not to mention this statement here: " I'm pé de Chinelo, but I'll be here forever, I'll create as many accounts as I want to, nobody can ban me." . Is that enough? Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2011 (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

Sock blocked as an obvious one. Unfortunately, he's IP-hopping all over the CIDR spectrum, so the only thing that can be done is semi- or full-protection of all the affected articles. –MuZemike 07:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22 August 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Same disruptive edits, same interests. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:01, 22 August 2011 (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

A   Likely match. TNXMan 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 20:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

09 October 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Outside the attacks on this page, [19], here he is making similar claims to the Heat article here: [Talk:Heat_(1995_film)#Crime_drama_or_Crime_thriller (since 2009!)]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2011 (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, but no other accounts I saw. TNXMan 00:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

05 December 2011
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Suspected to be sock of this user on IP's userpage. 1966batfan (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2011 (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
16 July 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

One of the main disruptions that Pe engages in is adding or changing genres for films. As you can see here [20] all of the IPs were advocating adding a genre to the Hunger Games article. Also note that they were all SPA's.

On July 12 Andrzejbanas this post [21] pointing out the fact that the IPs were Pe which was followed a few minutes later by this edit [22] where he returns to one of his favorite complaints about the genre listed for the film Léon: The Professional. This was followed by the inevitable personal attack on Andrzejbanas [23]

A day later StarshopSTX shows up and advocates the same change.

While I have been typing this this edit was made [24] where the user admits to being Pe.

Considering all the work that went into fixing Pes past vandalism here Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.* and also considering that Pe has made no attempt to perform a Clean Start I feel that this report still needs to be filed. Thanks for your time in looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While this has sat here for over three days Pe has made more unsupported genre changes including this one where the nest of IP socks hit the talk page to begin with. [25]. When someone finally gets to this would you please let me know if I did something in error in filing this that has slowed down any response to it. MarnetteD | Talk 03:52, 20 July 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

StarShopSTX is blocked and tagged. No blocks on the IP addresses as none of them have edited in about a week. --MuZemike 03:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

09 October 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


We have had to deal with this editor for a few years now. The bulk of the evidence dealing with this current incarnation will relate to this project Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.* from earlier this year. In my work on that project I came across the fact that Pe had edited under the names Marcos Marcelino dos Santos (talk · contribs) and Mateus Marcelino dos Santos (talk · contribs). While neither of these were tied to him at the time I mention them now as an example of his penchant for long user names. After noticing this new editor going to articles that had previously been edited by Pe I began to check the edit and found that right from the start he was doing exactly the same kinds of things as in the past. In the project linked above we found, time and again, the he enjoyed adding studios to film articles that had nothing to do with the making of the film. Here is just one of several hundred examples [26].

So:

  1. Second article edited (another editor had already caught the incorrect info on the first article edited) he added [27] two studios that had nothing to do with the film to the studio portion of the infobox and added Disney Studios as a distributor. Adding the Disney name is another of his habits as well as editing Disney articles.
  2. Next article [28] added Pathe as the makers of the film even though they had nothing to do with it. This is another of his favorite names to add to article infoboxes as can be seen here [29]
  3. Next article [30] Again added a studio that had nothing to do with the film and compounded things by hiding it as an EGG

Other edits are cosmetic and a few are okay but that is another hallmark of Pe's socks. I am continuing to check the rest of this new socks edits but I wanted to file this ASAP when I found too many that fit the old pattern.MarnetteD | Talk 20:02, 9 October 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

Blocked, tagged, reverted.—Kww(talk) 03:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

28 October 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


User has been making same disruptive edits to the Sucker Punch (film) article ([31]) and disruptive comments ([32]) that are identical to Pé de Chinelo. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:22, 28 October 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

Blocked for a week.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


28 October 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


And yet another IP whose has been making unconstructive edits to the same article immediately after the other IP was blocked ([33]). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:12, 28 October 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

Blocked new IP, protected Sucker Punch. Unfortunately, Pé edits through a /15, so no range blocking is possible.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pé_de_Chinelo/Archive&oldid=1148677024"