From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Russavia

Russavia ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
16 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Russavia is blocked for two weeks on 07:06, 28 March 2013. User:Seleucidis is created on 11:14, 28 March 2013, and his second edit is to User talk:Russavia [1], as is his third [2]. His fifth edit, and first mainspace edit, is adding an image uploaded by Russavia to an article [3]. Most of his edits are similar to this (e.g. [4]).

Seleucidis' final edit was at 21:55, 10 April 2013 [5], ending with "I can fly away now". The next morning, Russavia's 2 week block expired. On 19:50, 15 April 2013, Russavia is blocked again. The following morning, 11:23, 16 April 2013, Seleucidis starts editing again, asking Elen of the Roads to oversight an edit by Russavia [6].

He is now opposing Russavia's block "as an outsider" [7]. Considering all the above ,serious doubts can be placed on his "outsider" status; the editor is either an ill-disguised sock of Russavia, a SPA meatpuppet of Russavia, or an attempt to get Russavia blocked by someone acting as if they are a sock of him. How to act in this situation depends on which scenario is the correct one (e.g. the third one shouldn't reflect badly on Russavia), but some action seems to be necessary.

I have named Russavia as the sockmaster, since he is the obvious one; but I am not convinced that he is actually socking, I see it as a possibility amongst others. I seriously doubt that Seleucidis is a new editor though, and an SPI on him can determine this. Fram ( talk) 12:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  •  Comment: See whom you blocked, dead link you fools. odder ( talk) 14:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Ugh, this account is surely unrelated. Wpedzich ( talk) 08:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • As far as I (and the plwiki CU tool) was able to tell, Russavia holds no alternative account on pl.wikipedia. And Hortensja Bukietowa, whom I have come across many edits, is definitely unrelated to Russavia. Seleucidis coincides with Hortensja, but this seems not so much valid. Wpedzich ( talk) 08:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Seleucidis is obviously not new. There was another account created with it, Hortensja Bukietowa ( talk · contribs), but it has no edits. I did not directly check Russavia as I believe there is not enough evidence, plus the self-declared location on their userpage is far far away from where this new user locates to. There does not appear to be any proxy usage at this time. Also the behavior at glance does not match with Russavia. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: Seleucidis doesn't really look like Russavia. The editing style is different, although focused on similar areas. Add to that the obvious attempts to get caught and you have a joe job. I've blocked Seleucidis and his sockpuppet indefinitely. Closing. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 13:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • A remarkably helpful joe job! Bielle ( talk) 15:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
12 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

I am people like me I really dont want to make this report but this just screams of socking. I am people like me's edits have been to add photos uploaded to commons by Russavia. Given that there is currently a request for unblock at ANI for Russavia which really isnt looking positive this appears to be an account being used to bypass their block. Werieth ( talk) 19:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply

This cowboy's running from himself Kind of obvious Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC) reply

This alternate account of Russavia was declared on Commons but maybe not on en.wp. - tucoxn\ talk 08:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply
How does that matter? It is still socking after all. Darkness Shines ( talk) 08:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't disagree with your assessment. The evidence I posted simply links the account more explicitly with the proposed sockmaster. - tucoxn\ talk 09:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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

It doesn't really matter whether or not he has declared it on Wikipedia. Metawiki's global login system ensures that each username is unique only to a single editor, so even if the account isn't a global account, only one person can use that username. Given that, it pretty much declares that the guy is socking outright. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 04:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Both blocked and tagged as socks of Russavia. I don't see a need for CU as it's pretty obvious. Closing. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply
15 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

The Flugzeigbilder account was created very shortly after the other two accounts were blocked as Russavia socks. The previous SPI was closed before this account was identified and blocked by Fut perf. I'd like an underlying IP check to identify any sleeper socks and since I'm considering moving to a ban discussion at AMN I'd like to know if the technical evidence suggests that the Flugzeigbilder account might be a Joe Job or is really Russavia. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 13:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

@ Alison: Is anyone going to do a mass rollback of all these sock edits? If all his edits are allowed to stand then he is just going to carry on. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply

  • No idea, dude. I'm just the checkuser. I suggest either WP:RBI or bring it to the greater community's attention for action - Alison ❤ 19:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
 Confirmed - the following accounts are  Confirmed as being the same;


Also an entire range of IPs (like this one) that have been editing anonymously. Given that it's a server farm, I'm naming and blocking;
There are a number of other web hosting / open server IP ranges, now also blocked. And, 124.182.162.209 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) - rather obvious - which I blocked yesterday myself - Alison ❤ 19:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply
All of the above are  Confirmed matches of Russavia's useragent up until the Wangchuk2014 sock which, though using the same hosting range, has now got a deliberately obfuscated useragent. Nice try - Alison ❤ 19:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply
19 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious, request CU for the sleepers Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Yah,  Confirmed, of course. No other socks that I can see. Hardblocking range that's Russavia-only. Also, LOL @ "Fuck Off, CheckUser Browser/1.0 (It's Me; ru)" useragent, with the Russian localization tag. Classy - Alison ❤ 18:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Hola2014 ( talk · contribs) is now blocked indefinitely. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 19:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply
19 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious sock is obvious. Ish dar ian 22:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Confirmed, etc, etc. No further socks. It's a useful mechanism for finding open colocation hosts, I guess, but is a massive waste of time for everyone - including Russavia - Alison ❤ 22:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply
20 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Obvious sock adding Russavia-uploaded images to articles. Request checkuser for additional socks. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 03:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Confirmed - sure. No other socks, one narrow range blocked, full of other sockpuppeteers. Yes, very good! - Alison ❤ 05:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply


21 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

The contribution and obviously the username add up, Cheers – Davey2010 • (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


21 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Same situation as above. Single purpose account adding images to various pages that Russavia had uploaded [8]. Middayexpress ( talk) 20:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Confirmed
One narrow range blocked, one other /20 being monitored. I don't want to block that one quite yet though - Alison ❤ 23:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC) reply
All blocked and tagged. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC) reply
27 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Image-centric editing focus and edit summaries very similar to the sockmaster's confirmed and suspected sockpuppets. Since the last report was filed, they have also edited from at least four IP addresses. I believe that CheckUser is warranted to ascertain whether any other sleeper accounts have been registered. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 20:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


28 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Same as ever. Plus this. Darkness Shines ( talk) 04:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

You should probaly add Malgache2014, that user has just recreated Régie Malgache after the instance created by the two accounts above was deleted. Dolescum ( talk) 13:24, 28 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


29 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Created this page. I am One of Many ( talk) 07:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


29 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Just created the same article as the last few socks. Darkness Shines ( talk) 10:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


01 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Just created the same draft as his last sock. Darkness Shines ( talk) 07:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I guess this can be closed. Looks like a throwaway IP so no point blocking and I have tagged, deleted and salted the location. No more to do here. Spartaz Humbug! 20:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply


01 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

This unregistered IP account just inserted into List of High Commissioners and Ambassadors of Australia dozens of images uploaded by Russavia on Commons, including some which are only a few hours old. [9] The IP geolocates to Russavia's city of residence. Psychonaut ( talk) 21:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Tagged ip and rolled back edits. Not seeing much point blocking the ip as Russavia has moved on. (see below). Spartaz Humbug! 04:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  •  Inconclusive - but  Likely based on evidence - Alison ❤ 07:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply
02 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


At Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Russavia/Regie, a discussion was underway to determine whether the stale draft of Russavia was to be deleted. I immediately noticed that the article had been deleted over and over, and then salted, because of recreation by socks of Russavia. I also noticed that the article was sufficiently notable to be kept. I saw that the main reference to the topic gave the name as Régie Malagache rather than the salted article Régie Malgache, so I created the article Régie Malagache. Soon afterward, the very first edit of Diplomeditor was made at the new article. [10] The account's second edit showed the hand of Russavia explicitly, claiming that the new article was made from Russavia's wording. [11]
I'm asking for checkuser to find any other sleepers, as Russavia has been socking persistently. Binksternet ( talk) 03:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Blocked tagged and reverted. Not sure a CU will find anything - Russavia is good at hiding his tracks but it wouldn't hurt. I can't help feeling he is playing a game now with obvious edits for us to revert while running under the surface with another account all together.... Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  •  Confirmed - no other socks. Watching ranges closely but too early for a rangeblock, sorry - Alison ❤ 07:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply


03 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Several posts regarding the ANI discussion. All reverted and the latest sock is blocked, but wanted to post here for the record. If a clerk could close this it'd be much appreciated! ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 05:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • This IP is stale now. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 18:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC) reply
10 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

This IP editor admitted he is Russavia or at least regularly edits in Russavia's userspace (see here). Please note this for tagging, at least, as it may be another throw-away IP.- tucoxn\ talk 21:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Also, note 185.49.15.25 for the archives, another throw-away IP of Russavia that was already blocked (Special:Contributions/185.49.15.25). - tucoxn\ talk 21:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • 46.11.11.233 is another already blocked throw-away IP for the list. See diff. - tucoxn\ talk 22:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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

  • I'm adding three more IPs. I think it is useful to keep a list of IP addresses used by Russavia, even if we don't have a registered account to block. Binksternet ( talk) 18:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

For completeness, I have added 41.87.178.104 ( talk · contribs), as well as a registered account that I have just discovered – Ecuatoriana2014 ( talk · contribs). The latter is easily identifiable by the fact that it has been used exclusively to add images uploaded or moved by Russavia on Wikimedia Commons. Given the diversity of the IP addresses, I suspect that proxies are in play ( as they have been in the past). Super Mario Man ( talk ) 02:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply


13 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

This user continues to sock widely, almost certainly by means of proxies. Would it be possible to have a check run on the underlying IP address(es), as was previously done here? Given the recent creation of Ecuatoriana2014 ( talk · contribs) and substantial past sockpuppetry, a sleeper account check may also be prudent. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 11:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • @ SuperMarioMan: If your looking for CUs to connect the IPs to one another, it's pointless. All we can see more than you in that case is a useragent. Sure, we could say that they have the same useragent, but I think your behaviour is a lot more conclusive. In regards to running a sleeper check on the IPs...I would pull the WP:DENY card. He's obviously getting away using proxies, and he's getting our attention doing it. We aren't going to be able to stop him except by an edit filter, which you may want to consider. But as CUs we have to behaviourally connect each IP before we check it, and then we are not likely to get any accounts, as Russavia knows when to create accounts, and when not to. Maybe we get one or two. But I think we can just hold off on checking the IPs (not blocking) until we get an account, then check that. I also checked the account from the last case, no sleepers. I'm not going to decline this case, but i'm going to leave it for a fellow CU to decide if they feel it's necessary. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply
14 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

See here Quack quack. Dusti *Let's talk!* 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
15 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Saying that Russavia should be unbanned in the User:Patricknoddyontheroad/Userboxes/Alternate account userbox, as seen in this edit, among others. Said userbox, in any case, may warrant a protection due to excessive IP vandalism. Lugia2453 ( talk) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Lugia2453 ( talk) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Added another one. And now the IPs are trying to claim that I'm banned from the site and a sockpuppet of Ryulong (which, of course, is not even remotely true). Lugia2453 ( talk) 16:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Discussion that has no bearing on the case at hand
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Hey Tarc, maybe you should look at this instead of arguing that Russavia is allowed to edit.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 16:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    Ok, let's flag the Disinformation Express here for a stopover in RealityVille. I've never argued that he be allowed to edit...he and I have exchanged many unpleasantries over the years, and I played a part in his eventual site ban when I pushed along the anti-Pricasso campaign. What I have argued for is IF an edit made by a Russavia sock is an otherwise GOOD edit, i.e. the article is better off than it was without it, then it should be allowed to stand. Block the account, leave the work. Tarc ( talk) 16:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • As mentioned before, I've nothing personal against Russavia. But as long as he's banned, none of his edits (during his ban) should be restored or kept. I faithfully served my ban. Why shouldn't he? GoodDay ( talk) 16:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    Policy clearly supports the reinstatement of edits made by a blocked or banned user, per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_users and further states that unambiguous edits improving the project may be allowed to stand. The key idea in the banning policy is that edits made by a banned user can be removed, reverted or deleted without having to undergo further discussion, not that they should or that they must be removed, reverted or deleted. I'm old enough to remember the policy in its early days, interacting with its original authors and helping shape further additions - it was always thought editors would end up being banned for their edits - POV, racism, that sort of stuff, not more general behavioural problems away from the content, and for that reason, it was desirable to have a quick and convenient way to remove those problematic edits. We didn't really expect banned editors to be making wonderfully productive edits and writing good quality new articles, so we've got a policy which doesn't really sit all that comfortably with the idea Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anybody can edit, or the idea that if something stops you from improving the project, ignore it. Nick ( talk) 17:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    Restoring/keeping edits by banned users, has the potential to 'encourage' sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. I'd recommend ya'll change the current Edits by and on behalf of banned editors clause, to full restriction. GoodDay ( talk) 17:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    Your argument rests on the premise that reversion == discouragement. Does Russavia seem even slightly discouraged at the moment? Tarc ( talk) 17:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    Reversion = banning edits by banned editor. I'm merely giving ya'll a past-banned editor's PoV, on this matter. Trust me, you're not helping him in the long run, by proxying his good edits. GoodDay ( talk) 18:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    Your psyche during your own ban is not really applicable to others, though. No argument has yet been made as to how the project is improved by removing worthwhile content. Tarc ( talk) 18:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    A valid point, Nick, but this website has never really had any such content contributors banned because they used up the community's patience and good faith regarding their behavior outside of article creation (until Hasteur or you or someone else gets fed up with me, again). If the edits are made in good faith, then they should be allowed to stay, but that doesn't seem to be the case with Russavia these days considering all he does on this site and off.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 19:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@ Tarc and GoodDay: Please stop. An SPI page is not the place to debate policy and I would encourage you both to continue your conversation elsewhere. Mike V • Talk 18:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  • The IPs are all already blocked, and the target has been protected, so there is little point in keeping this open. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 20:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
20 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

IP claims to be Russavia and is requesting the deletion of all Russavia's sub pages. BarsofGold ( talk) 01:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I am not requesting deletion of all pages. I am requesting the deletion of specific pages. Other pages can be deleted by the community by going thru WP:MFD. 201.191.155.231 ( talk) 02:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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

  • I've reverted said edits as a request for deletion of userspace items need to come from said user themselves. Russavia still has access to email according to the block log. Dusti *Let's talk!* 01:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Blocked both IPs. Russavia should know that they are not permitted to edit on this Wikipedia so they can't request that the pages be deleted. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
25 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


User's first edit was to insert a Russavia-created Commons image [12], then headed straight to AfD with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan-Bart de Vreede. I hear quacking. Mangoe ( talk) 12:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Mangoe ( talk) 12:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I've blocked the account per duck. Mike V • Talk 13:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply


25 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Dusti *Let's talk!* 15:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Russavia's method of evasion involves switching IPs frequently. While it's helpful to block the IPs at the time they're being used, he's moved on from the addresses here. Mike V • Talk 13:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply
19 September 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Russavia claimed here to be working on the article Dobrolet (low-cost airline). User:ProudSaffa is the only account to have been editing this article recently, registered only recently on 7 September, and is active almost exclusively in Russavia's favoured topic of aviation. Personally, I think this is a WP:DUCK case, but I'm looking for a sanity check before going ahead and blocking. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 23:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
09 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Per unblock request, probably a Checkuser can told us. GZWDer ( talk) 05:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Also checking these IPs. They are probably open proxies.-- GZWDer ( talk) 05:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Pinging Salvio giuliano: As the admin who blocked for evasion, would you like to comment, or provide any actual evidence, before anything else? You are of course welcome to comment privately via e-mail to the CU team, if you'd rather. I am not declining nor approving the CU request at the present time, but another clerk is welcome to decide if they have more info. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 03:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Any admin/clerk/CU processing this SPI needs to be aware of the ongoing discussion on the user's talk page. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 06:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • As opposed to the first account reported (Polandball-to-GA), User:Don'tG5MyWork is indeed completely obvious. Blocked without tag, and especially without comment as to the rest of the report. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 06:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Don'tG5MyWork is technically  Likely to Taking-Polandball-to-GA. Both are technically  Unlikely to Russavia. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Don'tG5MyWork is Russavia beyond any doubt. The fact that the account is likely to Taking-Polandball-to-GA (albeit unlikely to Russavia) means I am closing this with no action taken, and Taking-Polandball-to-GA remains blocked, but without a tag. Any unblock request can be judged on its own merits and take these results into consideration. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 18:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC) reply
28 January 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

This brand new account reverted two articles to versions edited by IPs recently used by Russavia. See here and here. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Locked by WMFOffice. Added some others to find sleepers.-- GZWDer ( talk) 09:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Added another, see [13]-- GZWDer ( talk) 09:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I added the IPs 109.69.5.218, 180.94.80.172, 103.242.50.214 and 120.145.181.204, for the record. Binksternet ( talk) 15:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply
One last IP for the record: 41.107.211.87 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for a comment at ANI. Binksternet ( talk) 17:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note:  IP blocked per. All other accounts globally locked (except Aviationfirst) as a Russavia sock, so I've locally  Blocked and tagged them too (except Aviauploader which doesn't exist locally). ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 15:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm fairly certain WMF ran cross-wiki CU to globally lock all the socks they could find, so I doubt running a local CU will help much. Closing. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 15:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: Other IPs also blocked ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 15:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC) reply

14 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Declared themselves as the master here; editing in the same areas as well (airlines, airports, etc.) Jalen D. Folf ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I think it's entirely possible that this is just some random editor making inflated claims of article ownership. Believe it or not, I've seen people do this kind of thing before. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Insufficient evidence. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russavia/Archive&oldid=1136068065"