Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Evlekis

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

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

05 February 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Vandalizing in the same way on the same pages, for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holly_Willoughby&diff=prev&oldid=881926713 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holly_Willoughby&diff=prev&oldid=881927389 Gaelan 💬✏️ 18:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Actually no one to block because Ponyo blocked while I was eating lunch.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was productive completely by accident; pulled the string on Big booster and a bunch of socks unraveled into my lap.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15 February 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See this, where Beef and Onion flavour say they're "Max Pumpkin". The other accounts listed are also obviously related (see page history of my talk page, and their edits), and there are with all probability also more of them... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

15 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Obvious sock of Evlekis per edits (including reverting several of my recent edits) and their user name (which includes "Cooperative") in combination with this edit summary making a reference to "Bucksham" (Evlekis's fantasy organisation "Bucksham Cooperative"...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • @Boing! said Zebedee: Most of Edin balgarin's edits are on articles connected to the Balkans, which seems normal considering that it's a male Bulgarian name (while Evlekis is Serbian, IIRC, based on what he wrote himself on his user page several years ago, but with a Bulgarian connection, also based on what he wrote himself several years ago; and yes it's a he...), but there is an outlier among the articles edited, English people/Talk:English people, that seems suspicious, considering Evlekis's habit of reverting and opposing me. Which is what Edin balgarin did on that article/talk page recently, after having had the account since 2015 without having edited any article even remotely connected to that corner of Europe before (my interaction with Edin balgarin last November on Maltese people was me reverting his edits, not the other way around...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thomas.W: Yes, it was the English people/Talk:English people thing that raised my suspicions, especially as its timing coincides with a spate of Evlekis nonsense. But possibly better to give it the benefit of the doubt and just keep an eye open? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

As Evlekis is using a new bunch of accounts created in the past few days (including several today), I think a CU sleeper check is needed. Also, a recommendation that Evlekis socks should always be blocked with TPA and email disabled - he's also resurrected a load of old blocked accounts that still had TPA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Obvious sock per this edit, their general behaviour is also typical for Evlekis. Request CU since he usually has more than one sock at a time. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]


21 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

A new obvious sock (see above). They're already blocked but a CU-check might yield a sleeper or two... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The Edin balgarin account is in range but seems to have been previously dismissed.

31 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Restored content added by another blocked sock User:D Gums and posting biased entries on talk page. Spike 'em (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

10 June 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Disruptive editting of Leeds United F.C. related articles Spike 'em (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

restoring edits by previous socks : User:D Gums and User:SUPERLEEDS2020. Spike 'em (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed to Colin Fingers, D M Guns, Onion Apple Plum, D Gums etc.

02 July 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Restores edits of previous sock Colin Fingers. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Doesn't look like it from a technical perspective, but that seems kind of irrelevant now – LisaTaz has been blocked by ST47 as a suspected sock. The behavorial evidence can be explained in an unblock request, I suppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05 July 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Restores edits of previous sock Colin Fingers and LisaTaz.. —A.R.M. (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Page now protected. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08 July 2019 (Bravanello)[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Fairly obvious case of sockpuppetry given the attempt to win a revert war at Gibraltar [1], Gibraltarians [2], not to mention a confession on their talk page [3]. I think the blocking admin may have missed the first account on this SPI @ST47:.

I rather suspect given their knowledge of wiki workings there are other sleeper accounts. Request check user to confirm sock puppetry and to highlight any sleepers. WCMemail 12:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Hi, a few days ago I entered English wikipedia. I have no more accounts here, only one with the same name in Spanish wikipedia. I have been on wikipedia for a short time, and I have not been very clear about the sock puppets. According to what I have understood, I do not have to do anything, right? Hombre Gancho (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: There's no doubt about the two accounts listed as socks being connected, but I do not think they belong to Hombre Gancho (their English is very different, showing the suspected socks belong to a native English speaker, while Hombre Gancho obviously isn't a native speaker), instead they most probably belong to a long-term vandal and socker in Wiltshire, UK, whose name I don't see any point in mentioning: if I'm right a CU will see who it is, and if I'm wrong it doesn't matter. An LTA drawn to the article because I had edited it, not because he cares about the subject. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I didn't believe that Hombre Gancho was obvious enough to block at the time, while the two new accounts this morning were extremely obvious to one another. (I was also looking at Gibraltarians, which Hombre Gancho never edited.) No objection to blocking Hombre Gancho as the master if someone comes to that conclusion, I just wasn't sure myself. ST47 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bravanello and Gibraltaresespañol are  Confirmed to each other. Hombre Gancho is Red X Unrelated.  Clerk assistance requested: Please move case to Bravanello. I've tagged the two accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23 July 2019 (Bravanello)[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


See [4] and [5] a fairly obvious case of sockpuppetry. Checkuser requested but in reality the quacking is loud and clear with this one. Previous case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bravanello/Archive WCMemail 07:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See here, there are two additional socks that were detected by a previous checkuser that do no feature in the archive. On past performance there are likely to be more. WCMemail 15:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • information Administrator note I don't know if it's the worst attempt to hide sockpuppetry in history or just another Joe Job, but I'm happy to  Blocked without tags indef the sock while we wait for a checkuser to decide which it is. ST47 (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I've got him and Bravanello on the same narrow range but on a different device. I've actually got Bravanello on the same range and device as a confirmed sock of Evlekis but the behavior is way different. Katietalk 21:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think we need to resolve the specific master. Sock is blocked; closing without tags. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06 August 2019 (Bravanello)[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Both editing the same articles with the same type of belligerent comments in their edit summaries. CLCStudent (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Oppose SPI. Alternative accounts are allowed where it is stated so up front, others are POV pushing, and User:Bravanello was unlawfully left unblocked and without TP access. Democracy is important (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, you don't get to oppose SPIs, they're not a vote. Also pretty sure there are no "laws" about blocking editors. Praxidicae (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I can find no evidence the alternate account was disclosed anywhere. I looked but may plausibly have missed this disclosure. --Yamla (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the closer, should this not be linked to the Bravanello case? [6] Clearly the same guy. WCMemail 06:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

27 August 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


[7] see also User:Democracy is important and [8] per WP:DUCK a fairly obvious case of sock puppetry. WCMemail 09:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • This case should be filed under the name Evlekis, because this new user account and all the accounts that have been previously blocked in this case is Evlekis (as I have hinted earlier...). If any CU/admin wants to know what I base it on, email me, but I don't want to give him extra attention here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Done. Closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Passing on a request made on my talk. Likely based on behaviour though I'm not personally familiar with this master. — 🦊 20:45, 22 April 2020 (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. This is Evlekis, but I did not find any further accounts that had not yet been blocked. Closing. Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02 May 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See [9]. Requesting CU because the fact that this account went undetected for several days makes me think there are more. Sro23 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2020 (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 following accounts are  Confirmed to each other and  Likely related to Evlekis socks.

12 May 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Per WP:ANI#Obvious_Evlekis-sock_in_need_of_a_quick_block. Already indeffed by User:Sro23. I don't have admin goggles, so I can't see the diffs. I'm reporting here 1) for posterity and 2) to request CU because the last SPI (10 days ago!) had 1 reported sock, but a CU found 2 sleepers -- so there will probably be some more. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2020 (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]

  • Account was globally locked and checked, no need for further action. Praxidicae (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to confirm that the account was indeed checked by a couple CUs yesterday. Mz7 (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11 June 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Based on behavioural evidence: targeting me, making odd reverts with an edit summary falsely claiming they reverted a certain edit, without reverting that edit, making double reverts (i e first making a revert and then reverting that revert) in order to confuse other editors, and increase their editcount, etc, etc, *and* swiftly creating a new sock (Humbugz) when they needed help with removing a speedy tag on an article (Franky Wah) that they created directly in article space after the draft (Draft:Franky Wah) had been declined at AfC. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Humbugz's latest contributions on my talk page. And please do a CU-check even if both of the accounts have been blocked by the time a checkuser sees this, since Evlekis has a habit of creating spare accounts for future use. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:47, 11 June 2020 (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 + MAX Pumpkin (Bucksham) (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). No other unblocked accounts seen. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15 July 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longs_Island&diff=prev&oldid=967809129 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longs_Island&diff=prev&oldid=967851723 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longs_Island&diff=prev&oldid=967851676 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deh_Khosrow&diff=prev&oldid=967850609 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deh_Khosrow&diff=prev&oldid=967807679 Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2020 (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]

09 August 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Same user page and almost identical user name as previous sock The Peacocks Are Back (talk · contribs). Robby.is.on (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2020 (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. No tag per DENY. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 August 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Please see Barber surgeon; @Thomas.W: has suggested that this may be Evekis and it is clear that there are a number of accounts controlled by the same person edit warring on this page; including a completely new one created to troll my talk page (the comment on my talk page has been revdel'd, but the biphobic comment remains on the later revision)  viljo  talk 19:04, 27 August 2020 (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]

  •  Clerk endorsed - sleeper check, also would a rangeblock be feasible here? GeneralNotability (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked through this earlier. They're creating the accounts over an extremely wide range in order to bypass a soft block on another range that has too much collateral to hard block at this time. TLDR: whack a mole.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested GeneralNotability (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure when and why we starting globally locking these socks, but with all due respect, it won't accomplish anything other than wasting people's time. Evlekis socks don't have cross-wiki activity, and as long as their TP access is disabled, we should be fine. Sro23 (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sro23, I requested global locks because the master is globally locked. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18 September 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Added a comment to [[10]] that's signed with a previously blocked user's name, seems to talk in the same style (blunt, asserting) WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 05:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I oppose the commencement of an SP/I because all the evidence shows that it is a waste of time. Basically, Who Ate My Butter (WAMB hereinafter) asked me to explain an edit, and when I showed him/her that JBW his/herself made a vandal edit, WAMB had nothing else to do but invoke Occam's razor according to his/her own limited frame of reference. Repent to Jesus (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? No, you quickly reverted yourself (to avoid being caught?), not JBW. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 05:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

18 September 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User admits it in their talk page, at top. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 07:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

04 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Shares the same focus as other Evlekis socks such as User:D Gumms, User:D Gums and User:The Peacocks Are Back : edits to 2020–21 Leeds United F.C. season and Phil McNulty.

Harry Shuffle adds a derogatory nickname here. D Gumms restores it here.

Also compare this edit summary by Shuffle with one with an identical style by The Peacocks Are Back here Valenciano (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2020 (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]

19 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I don't know who the master account is behind these cursing sockpuppets, but the IP range should be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

11 November 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See page history of Grobina. Evlekis using his favourite good sock/bad sock trick, first reverting me with a non-obvious sock (Dropstick), and then using a very obvious sock User:Epsom Axe Grinder to revert the non-obvious sock, with the obvious sock then being reverted leaving the edit of the non-obvious sock untouched. Which is what has happened here, just as it has happened countless of times before on other articles. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:57, 11 November 2020 (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]

  • information Administrator note: Already checkuser-blocked by Drmies. Closing. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18 November 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Serial sock puppeteer. Many of which are being used (and some named to) to WP:HARASS me. "Sven" is just the latest. Frequently will undo a string of edits only to revert back to the version before they last edited. Needs a checkuser to rout out sleepers, and maybe find a IP to block. oknazevad (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Deny. I was not informed about this SPI and had to find it myself. To this end it should be thrown out, and so should Oknazevad (ie blocked indef). Sven Asterix (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sven Asterix, SPI is not a vote and there is no requirement for oknazevad to notify you if they open an investigation into you. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed). Far better to do this is stealth so I don't have the chance to defend my honour and good name. And what does it matter about the others on the list? They're all blocked. I mean yes THEY probably are Start Bollocks, but that doesn't mean everyone who resembles one might also be. Why are we wasting our time here. Sven Asterix (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk note: I am not convinced that Sven Asterix is one of those socks based on what I can see of the behavior. oknazevad, please do not assume that everyone who reverts you is a sock, and please don't tag people as sockpuppets. I have, however, given Sven Asterix a 48h block for personal attacks (one of which was on this SPI). As for the other accounts, I agree that most of them appear to be the same person (though I'm less certain whether Stark Bollocks is related), but since these appear to be one-off vandalism accounts I don't see much value in checkuser here. If more of these accounts show up, please report them to WP:AIV. Closing without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold - just want to take some time to explore if this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TAILS SKYPATROL IS GOOD FOOLS. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Likely (mixed with some confirmed, but i'm not going to split the hairs):
Already locked, also likely
FTR most of this was blocked before I dealt with it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to waste our time tagging. Marking for close. Sro23 (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

25 November 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Quack. Near identical username to a recent previous sock Sven Asterix. Same harassing behavior against me as well. oknazevad (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Already blocked, but Dibsquabs is quacking pretty loudly as well. oknazevad (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk note: Reopening - sleeper check please. Lock requested for the most recent sock. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a few but they're already blocked and I'm not listing them per WP:DENY. Trust if an Evlekis sock is reported, they've been checked. Closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24 November 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

see Talk:Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign KylieTastic (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2020 (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]

  • This is Evlekis. Moved SPI to proper place. All sockpuppets blocked. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


25 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This user already shows a behavior that deserves a block by itself. His original account (if it isnt another alt) is Chestermoon. It appeared on 23 December and only engaged in vandalism [11] [12]. He left me a message [13] but was afterwards blocked. The next account to appear is Jimmy Reverence on the same day. Again, he only engaged in vandalism and in annoying people. He left me this message pretty much admitting he was just another account of Chestermoon [14]. He got blocked again and made the third accounta day later, James Parker Tom, which literally has "Jimmy Reverence" in his userpage [15] even though he denied being the same person with a lame excuse [16]. And yes, he again left me another message with this new account [17].

In resume, a disruptive and annoying user with racist views and no value at all for the website. The more than obvious connection can be seen with a fast read. User will most likely return so expect another report soon. Super Ψ Dro 17:51, 25 December 2020 (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]

  •  Clerk note: Obvious duck - created shortly after last sock was blocked, comments on filer's talk page (which would be blockable in and of themselves) refer to comments they made with previous accounts. Blocked, tagging socks, closing. GirthSummit (blether) 12:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Ray Forrest was blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia with talk page access removed. Szerkesztő 10 showed up on Ray Forrest's talk page 6 minutes later and proclaimed I'm here to build Wikipédia and the community. They couldn't post with the Ray Forrest account so they posted with what appears to be a seperate account. Ray Forrest's first edit (now deleted) was removing a WP:G10 speedy deletion tag from a Draft created by Szerkesztő 10. A checkuser is requested because I believe there are other accounts also. Looking at Ray Forrest's contributions, they went around welcoming a bunch of users including Szerkesztő 10. I don't think it is enough to accuse them of being sockpuppets, I do believe it is enough to create the suspicion for a check user of the accounts. ~ GB fan 10:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

05 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User refers to themselves as Max Pumpkin (another confirmed sock) in a talk page post. I will not link to it directly due to its offensive content. SK2242 (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2021 (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]

  • Yes, this is him. The account has already been blocked indefinitely for vandalism, and a request is already on Meta for a global lock. Closing. Mz7 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Based on deleted contribs and modifications to SK2242's talk, I think this is Evlekis. They're already indeffed locally. Can someone confirm and request global locks if needed? Pahunkat (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Not sure if a CU will be useful here, but requesting one for a sleeper check given that the last one was also filed today. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Well isn't that just the most pathetic username I've ever seen :'). I don't know if running CU would be helpful, since in the past it's been advised that if an Evlekis sock is reported to assume it's been CU checked. The sock was only created today so we might need to just play whac-a-mole. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I just wanted to file a formal SPI on this vandal who is readily identifiable by edits like this that will only be visible to admins. All of the offending edits have been revision deleted but they have the exact same wording from all the sockpuppets, they are all insulting and abusive towards Kamala Harris. Look at this kind of abuse that this article receives. This particular vandal uses the exact identical message but also sometimes calls Joe Biden a pervert for good measure. I would just like to file this report so that sockpuppets can be blocked as sockpuppets and not as vandals. I'm sure a CU check will find there have been dozens of accounts in this sockpuppet farm. I've proposed an edit filter be created because they are so active and because so many edits have to be rev. deleted by admins, I'm afraid that some might pop up and not be caught. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I originally created a new complaint under the assumption that the sockpuppet master was Born Again Coco but found a message there that said that Evlekis was the sockpuppet master so I have copied and pasted the message here. Is there any way an IP range can be blocked to stop this guy? Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Also found and  Confirmed:
Chestermoon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sven Astirix (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
TRUTH MAKE YOU STRONG (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
No mercy (for the weak) (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Yorkshireman 20 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hurdio (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Spacewise (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
The Unstoppable Machine (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Dystopianautocrat (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Father Christmas Ho Ho Ho (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sunshine Dragon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hetero ROX (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
All socks will be bagged and tagged. This SPI can be closed... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Obvious sock is obvious. Same behavior (pointless abusing edits immediately reverted). Same targets of abuse (me and a couple of others). Already blocked, but may be time for another checkuser run to find any sleepers. oknazevad (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Definitely, since Sro23 was a target. Same behaviour like Island Magical, When you listen you learn, R 772 and Mind your business creep which I have tagged before. Pahunkat (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

23 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See user contributions and their message on my talk page. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2021 (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]

  • There's nothing connecting the user to Evlekis, in fact it's clear this is just 173.238.91.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) after creating an account. As for the message left on your talk, I wouldn't worry about it. As far as I can tell you did nothing wrong reverting the IP, as it removed what seems to be sourced content without explanation. Wikipedia will survive without this person's donation. Sro23 (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sro23, yes, I realized after looking to contributions and edits, and I was going to close this topic; thanks. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13 February 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This may be a separate case, but I'll file it here for reasons I'll explain below.

There is an IP-hopping vandal that has been repeatedly vandalized BLPs with the same sort of behaviour - they have targeted articles including Jay Leno, Ted Turner with Ted Turner being the last recorded incident of the IP vandal. In all cases, articles have had to be semi-protected since the vandal just comes back with more IPs.

A few days ago, Chuck Mincho came to my talk page to ask about the Ted Turner article. They seemed a bit trolling but I hung on to AGF instead of reporting them to AIV - eventually Sro23 blocked them as an obvious sock.

After Chuck Mincho was blocked, The Road to Paradise came and reverted a seemingly unrelated edit. We had a conversation about it, but after they reached 10 edits they posted this message to my TP as a reply. You can guess what happened next, they bypassed the semi-protection on Ted Turner and vandalized again.

Today Blishtwish came along, reverting to a sock edit on the article TP.

I'm pretty sure this is Evlekis - it's not like the IP-hopping vandal to create accounts, they seem a bit too knowledgeable about things on wiki - evidence on request by email per WP:BEANS, but it should become clear if you look at their edits. Additionally, we have had a sock (David Pahoraro Alternative) comment on the TP before.

In either case, a CU is needed to check for sleepers. It's clear from the message left by RTP that they are looking to create accounts, and there's a delay between creation and editing of all listed accounts. It's worth checking for sleepers with this master anyway - I'll list some more socks below for CUs to check if needed. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proven socks that may be useful for a CU (along with the archives):

Pahunkat (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, sure this is Evlekis - see the logs of the last sock (Blishtwish). Pahunkat (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Praxidicae, I originally requested the CU to check if we had a different LTA. Personally, I think there's a large chance of sleepers - there is a delay between account creation and account editing. In this way, a CU will be useful - but I'll leave it at that... Pahunkat (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk note: declining, this is a totally pointless request, they're all blocked and please read WP:DENY. CUPIDICAE💕 12:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 February 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


User Dave Parohaho went on a rampage targeting Pahunkat, creating several attack pages about them and anyone who intervened before they were banned. However, one deleted diff shows him admitting he should "never have messed with Max Pumpkin", a previous sock.[18] I am requesting CU because they are known to use multiple sockpuppets and have sleepers. Jns4eva (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

For some other accounts, see below and the history of my talk page. Pahunkat (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

26 February 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

SPA created after master's block for block evasion & to continue the harassment of Pahunkat. Filing for the record. Cabayi (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Cabayi, this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. Pahunkat (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI another one today was OK wise guy what's the solution? Pahunkat (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi, could you please pull the TPA of Dave Parohaho? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

27 February 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same harassment and personal attack. Ashleyyoursmile! 17:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Ashleyyoursmile, there was another one, Roland List. A comment by the latter on their talk page about what checkusers would find caught my attention, only admins can see it now. Pahunkat (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second HJ Mitchell’s advice. I’ve long since given up on filing SPIs for blatant Evlekis socks. I don't think a sleeper check will turn up much to be honest... Pahunkat (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I already dealt with this earlier today, it's them, did what was needed at the time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01 March 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

see contributions. Ahmetlii (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Added User:Cd159289323 (note the transposed '89'). Is it worth getting a CU and blocking any underlying IP ranges or are they too wide to warrant this? ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is them. Obvious harassment and attack pages. They appear almost everyday. Ashleyyoursmile! 10:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

01 March 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Similar usernames to the previously blocked socks. Account created at almost the same time as the other ones. EN-Jungwon 12:37, 1 March 2021 (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]

  • Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold - Sorry for re-opening this, but could a CU please take a look? Evlekis is known for joe-jobbing new users at random. The other "Cd15..." accounts that are obviously Evlekis were created after this one and I'm not convinced this one is related. Sro23 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated as far as I can tell. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. @HJ Mitchell: I will be unblocking the user, I hope you don't mind. This isn't the first time he's impersonated someone possibly with the intent to get them blocked. Sro23 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08 March 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I blocked this as a DUCK sock per username being an alteration of a past sock username (past sock: Dave Parohaho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).

Also see report at ANI regarding this account and a /64 IPv6 range 2A01:E34:EC61:2680:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Asking for CU for sleepers given extensive socking in recent past. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Gonna mention Whitevine as well. Been here for a week, less than 50 edits, vandalized my user page despite no previous interaction. Being a previous target of this guy, it's duck behavior to me. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • David is Evlekis, others Red X Unrelated to them but  Confirmed to each other:
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gushy blocked. Thank you AmandaNP! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving group 2 untagged, probably some older LTA but per DENY that shouldn't really matter. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 May 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Same behavior as previous socks. Reverts correct edits by users targeted for harassment then reverts those reversions with an edit summary saying "fix" or other such nonsense. Frankly, of its not to large of an IP range, I wonder if a block of new user registrations makes sense. oknazevad (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC) oknazevad (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2021 (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.  Blocked without tags (TPA revoked), closing. Mz7 (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested, archiving. --Blablubbs|talk 20:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

25 January 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Filing per recommendation of RoySmith. Harassment. First was obvious per their last two edits (see history of the page). Other two are revert-baiting on Talk:Anti-Normanism. All are sleepers so please look for others. Pahunkat (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed  No sleepers immediately visible. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epsom Nutbreaker, but here is a more appropriate page. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 14:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Already dealt with before the previous case was filed; please just deny and move on in cases like this.  No tags, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Special:AbuseLog/31991013 Pahunkat (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

@Pahunkat — I would suggest to WP:DENY. I filed a report just under 12 hours ago, and Blablubbs came and told me the exact same thing: just don't feed the trolls. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment — They had been creating attack pages, insulting you, me, and 2 others, in the exact same theme. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another comment — Try filing an SPI about Hopsquishgrbr instead; — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@zzuuzz — Per @Sro23, it's more like Hopsquish is the sock here. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they were. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Pahunkat, according to the filter log, TropicalTriangle was trying to remove vandalism from your userpage. Sro23 (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not appear to be Evlekis. No further information. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05 April 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

After popping up out of nowhere and yet acting like they've been here for years (name dropping notice boards, complex wiki code edits, and other red flags for socks), the assumed master here decided to contribute stalk me under another sock that likewise made a single edit. See the identical edit summaries here and at the sock's sole edit. Mind you, I'm also certain that the assumed master here is already a sock of a previously indeffed user that probably holds a grudge against me in some fashion, though I can't be certain of whom. It just sets off every sockpuppeteer red flag I've ever seen. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had a feeling it was a return of a previous problem. That he targeted me (I've caught him before) is what set of the alarms. This should probably be merged to that case page for the record. oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC) (moved from the administrators' section, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Go ahead and check. You'll find no correlation between my credentials and the other said editor. We reverted a well known disruptive editor with our opening edits and that is where all behavioural similarity draws to a close. Oknazevad is a POV pusher who doesn't like anyone opposing them. --JP7i1-u (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CheckUser requested - JP is currently blocked for one week for personal attacks. Because there's only one edit by the suspected sock, I think a CU should be run. Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed:
Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either trolling (i.e. Thomas.W Legitsock) or just normal socking. CU blocking all indef. Tagged. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That'll be Evlekis. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk assistance requested: - This report should be merged and the accounts retagged. Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerged. I'll untag the lot per usual practice for Evlekis. Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

30 May 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Oh, I don't know. The targeted harassment of me is a big clue. Like the fact that this user has reverted every single edit I've made today, just like the last few Evlekis socks despite never editing any of these articles before. 100% WP:DUCK. Do we really need to link individual diffs or can an admin just look at the sock's contrib history and see that there's at least a dozen edits that are just blanket reverts of my edits on completely unrelated pages. I'm frankly sick of this bullshit happening every few months. oknazevad (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Blocked, no tags per DENY. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04 July 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

All the "tells" are there. Same old recent changes patrolling, same old aggressive and stubborn battleground tendencies (has already been blocked for edit warring), out of the blue revert wars with established editors for no apparent reason ([19], [20]), complaints about rollback "abuse" (see User talk:Sportspop#no need), also note the repeated removals of the term "thrashed/thrashing", like a previous sock: [21] [22] [23]. Edits in the same topic area as the most recent batch of sockpuppets. I'm not totally comfortable blocking without a technical connection, but this sure smells familiar. Sro23 (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk endorsed - Endorsing own request, to confirm sockpuppetry. Please compare to most recent socks in the archive. Sro23 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    just wanted to say I agree with this looking at it now. Makes a lo of sense given my interaction with them. Though the way they speak in some edit summaries reminds me of a generic child vandal. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say  Likely, plus I have them confirmed to some other blocked vandalism accounts that sure look Evlekis-y. Blocked, lock requested, closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09 August 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

CU-confirmed with Sportspop. Pro forma, really; I guess we don't tag these anymore. And I suppose a /23 block on the range is overkill... Drmies (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested.  No tags. Closing. --Jack Frost (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21 August 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New user shows up, immediately reverts some of my prior edits (and only my edits) and then immediately reverts themselves to leave no net change to the page. Total fits the pattern of harassing behavior by this guy. Nipping this one in the bud, and requesting checkuser to look for sleepers. oknazevad (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

25 September 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Reinstated my edit (which, although I do appreciate, is still loutsocking) to make me seem like I’m loutsocking. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

GeneralNotability If they’re a sock of Evlekis, then could this case be moved? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

16 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I've been sent here by zzuuzz who has a striking suspicion that these two accounts that have harrassed me are Evlekis' doing. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 02:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  In progress - Normally, I'd say, "They're already blocked, nothing left to do here", but given the claims of personal harassment and the history of this case, I'll dig a bit deeper for possible sleepers. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18 October 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The subject believes this is another Evlekis sock. I've blocked them. I'll change my block to remove talk page and email access. Secretlondon (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

07 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

DUCK.. at least for what we consider "Evlekis". LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 10:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Yeah, that's probably him. Handled, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Self-admitted sock on talk page, trolling and personal attacks gone wild. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The account is now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Has a similar user name to recent sock Freescott, immediately made a far too detailed user page, one their first edits was to needlessly revert one of my edits despite it being a correction. The usual BS. Requesting check user to root out any sleepers. oknazevad (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Confirmed. I didn't see any obvious sleeper accounts.  Blocked without tags. Closing. Mz7 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Nit only is the same pattern of harassment of me in play here (blindly reverting my edits on articles such as karate and Template:Castlevania without prior prompting), but we've got tag-team socking at Meg Griffin to put in long-rejected edits and undiscussed move vandalism. Not the similarities of the sock user names as well ("developer" being part of the processing of film in traditional photography). oknazevad (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
It's fine to go ahead with a CU because I know there won't be any findings. I am not affiliated to @Frankie Photographer: and certainly not to any other editor either. I suggest close this investigation rapidly. They has provided no evidence of their suspicion. I have reverted some of their edits where they (Oknazevad) made some poor contributions. --Jack Developer (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second Jack. His observation is spot on. They have chosen a few coincidences, but they have not shown a link between Jack, me and Evlekis. --Frankie Photographer (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: have a look at Special:Contributions/NapoleonTHEvictorious. The revision history of Hadji-Dawud shows NapoleonTHEvictorious's edits[24],[25],[26],[27] being reverted four times by Taking Out The Trash, and then Frankie Photographer twice reverting Taking Out The Trash to restore NapoleonTHEvictorious's edits.[28],[29] They only interacted on that page.Editor Interaction Analyser -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Confirmed to each other, consistent with Evlekis. Blocked. Didn't see any obvious others from a cursory glance, but another CU might be more perceptive. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Shows up, immediately makes obviously incorrect reversions of my grammar fixes, follows to different pages. Setting of my Evlekis sense. oknazevad (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, behavior once reverted was the same abusive crap as usual. While the sock is already blocked for the vandalism and the edits revdelled, check user to look for sleepers (which is typical behavior) is still needed. oknazevad (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

15 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Newly created account only a few days after last socks were blocked. First edits are to revert, and then un-revert, some of my edits. Quack. oknazevad (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (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 May 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Reverted me here and then followed me to here, plus:

CU is needed to confirm or deny. Pahunkat (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2024 (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]

  • Technically pretty  Likely, behavioural evidence as well convinces me to block and request lock. Girth Summit (blether) 12:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Evlekis/Archive&oldid=1226277599"