Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nalbarian/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nalbarian

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

17 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Special:Diff/1072355965 response on talk page indicates use of sock for block evasion, plus ZNKA contribution spread. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:14, 17 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]

  • I don't think Checkuser is necessary, this is pretty blatantly obvious - see this edit and [1][2] etc. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - please indef the sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already blocked by El C. Tagged and closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: This case was initially filed under WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NeverTry4Me, but was later found to be a joe job. Spicy (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Creates user page & user talk. Third edit is to ANI in support of master. Cabayi (talk) 12:32, 17 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]

18 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

MoiKebolTumar immediately makes contributions at Special:Diff/1072522178 & Sepcial:Diff/1072522590 correlating with NeverTry4Me's work. Might or might not be felt sufficiently obvious to need checkuser; I've left it at no at the moment but some may wish to call for it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Added HeeraDrishti who is in the same edit area per contributions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:55, 18 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]

Sooo, this report and the two from 17 Feb in the archive need to move to GeezGod & last years report to remain with NeverTry4Me? Cabayi (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New account, first edit is to vote in an AfD heavily defended by NeverTry4Me. Next edit was to remove tags on an article they had created. Strong opinions about ULFA rebels as well; NeverTry4Me had created and contributed extensively to articles on them. I've read CaptainEek's comment in the previous report about other socks trying to pretend to be NeverTry4Me, but didn't know where else to file. Hemantha (talk) 12:10, 19 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]

21 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

For paperwork tracking only and if a sleeper check is needed. Already blocked and tagged (as NeverTry4Me). Star Mississippi 18:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC) ETA per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Protest_against_deletion_of_Pallab_Bhattacharyya_article this may be NeverTry4Me so maybe CU would be helpful. Either way, someone's sock has been put away for the time being.[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 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

New account which immediately went to post an ANI about deleting one of the puppeteer's articles, and then left an unsubstantiated claim on the AfD of another of the puppeteer's AfD's, as well as leaving a comment on user:El C's talk page, the admin who interacted with the puppeteer on their talk page, blocking their talk page access. Onel5969 TT me 18:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Also, both users placed the unusual wording of None can buy my ethics on their user pages. Tuhirere also !voted in an open AfD in which NeverTry4Me had also !voted. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Simultaneously blocked by Bbb23 as a sock and Star Mississippi as NOTHERE. Tagged by Bbb. Closing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NeverTry4Me contacted me off-wiki saying that this is a joe-job by GeezGod (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and CaptainEek's comment here would seem to support the idea that previous supposed NT4M sox have been joe-jobs, although Eek doesn't name a master. See also past filing's move. @CaptainEek and Bbb23: Any thoughts on either retagging as a sock of GeezGod or just not tagging at all?  On hold for now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tamzin: I see no reason not to ask for a checkuser to confirm. It's not tough, and I don't like the idea of accepting a blocked user's opinion as fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If Eek or another CU thinks a check is merited, I certainly don't object. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Tamzin: Do you have a problem with my requesting a CU? That way it will get more attention, and the checkuser can always decline the check if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk for comparison both to NeverTry4Me and GeezGod. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tuhirere is  Confirmed to GeezGod and Red X Unrelated to NeverTry4Me. I'll leave the tagging and blocking until the inevitable case rename. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved, retagged, reblocked, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

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]

Behavior by this account was obvious enough to justify a block on sight, as they ran straight to ANI to claim another puppet account's edits as their own. Just filing the case here so that we have a log of it. signed, Rosguill talk 04:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that CU confirms that this is GeezGod - I just ran a check because they made another unblock request this morning. I've revoked TPA. Girth Summit (blether) 06:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And also "happened" to find my Talk. Thanks for the quick handling and @Bbb23: for the housekeeping service. Star Mississippi 14:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Wichan The Lost Guy is a recent account who seems fairly adept and has contributed into an article edited by the GeedGoz sock ZNKA: Special:Diff/1073552316. Special:Diff/1073543094 by Wichan The Lost Guy on an Wikipedian India brings that account also possibly in the frame. Contributions seem to relate to the recent NeverTry4Me/GeezGod area but doesn't seem to me like NeverTry4Me. Checkuser will be needed due to all sort of joe.jobbing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Hi. Before you close this could you also check this user against NeverTry4Me, who GeezGod joejobbed. There is a similarity in grammar, and while this user proclaims to be focused on Asia articles, 2 of their first 3 articles are non-Asia related, and then they focus on two articles I've prodded. Seems a bit fishy. Onel5969 TT me 12:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • From a purely technical perspective, CU indicates that a connection between these accounts, to each other or to GeezGod, is  Unlikely. Girth Summit (blether) 10:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting for the record that these accounts also do not look like NeverTry4Me. I can't rule anything obviously, but there's nothing in particular that connects them, aside from the fact that they all geolocate to the same (large) country. Girth Summit (blether) 12:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wichan The Lost Guy has been blocked as NOTHERE. Looking at Wikipedian India's contribution history, I don't think they have anything to do with all of this nonsense. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

25 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Account created five days ago somehow found their way to AfD of an obscure Assamese terrorist less than four hours after the AfD was created. Rajen Sharma was created by NeverTry4Me who GeezGod has either been targeting or is related to. All the substantive edits to the Sharma article have either been by NeverTry or GeezGod socks Wichan The Lost Guy, ZNKA, 7M4TN7. Priya's first substantive edit after account creation was to Draft talk:Priyanka chahar choudhary and soon after edited a duplicate draft talk page. Both are obviously related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary (2nd nomination), both of which were disrupted. The edits that Priya made to Rajen Sharma were also the same type of refbombing that were made by GeezGod/NeverTry such as this one and this one. These are similar to edits made by Wichan and ZNKA in that the cited sources do not discus the article subject and are obvious products of googling and adding anything mentioning the article subject. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • COMMENT OMG. I am not. I edit randomly. Is that my fault? --Priya Ragini (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Priya Ragini, could you describe how you came across the specific articles you've edited so far, particularly the ones mentioned above in the report? Was it by clicking the random article button? signed, Rosguill talk 05:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I clicked on recent changes link at Wikipedia Home page and landing at several pages and I started editing with sources. Is that my fault? If it is, then I am sorry. --Priya Ragini (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find that to be particularly credible given the time stamps of the edits to the articles in question. I'm not going to take admin action because I'm involved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajen Sharma and will leave it to someone uninvolved to make the call here. signed, Rosguill talk 05:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Priya Ragini is Red X Unrelated to any accounts I have CU data for.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation -- RoySmith (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming back to take another look, I'm not seeing any compelling evidence that Priya Ragini is a sock, let alone a sock of GeezGod. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

25 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

 Looks like a duck to me Obvious user name similarity, first substantive edit is no-rationale vote to AfD of a NeverTry-created article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 25 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]

  • I've blocked the account without tags. I assume it's GeezGod. Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, but I think we had a three-way edit conflict :-)  Confirmed to GeezGod. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there's now a tangle of accounts that have been connected to GeezGod, some of which are CU-check related and some of which aren't, could it be that we're looking at a meatpuppet farm, rather than a joe job? signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear to me this is some sort of orchestrated campaign against NT4M. GeezGod did at WP:COIN say that they'd become aware of NT4N's (alleged) perfidy via a FaceBook discussion and were here to fix NT4M but good. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

26 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another brand new user voting in the AfD of a NeverTry4Me article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:52, 26 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 checked and blocked some more trollish accounts confirmed to this one. Probably GeezGod. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03 March 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I ran a check on Uyuyioiop, which had obviously been created to purely harass someone, to see whether there were any other accounts. The checks matched the ranges and UA used by GeezGod, which would make sense with regards to the target of their harassment (I also noted some attempts to log into my account from those ranges). I also see a connection to Nalbarian. Since Nalbarian has recently been arguing their case for on unblock on their talk, I thought it would be worth looking at this more closely: I'd be grateful if another CU would look and see whether they come to the same conclusions I did. Feel free to e-mail me if it's not obvious what I'm talking about. Girth Summit (blether) 13:27, 3 March 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]

14 July 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

As user Nalbarian is blocked for proved multiple socks, here is another user User:AliviaGoswami comes and started to work on Nalbarian created page, as User:Nalbarian failed to get unblocked. Hence SPI is requested because User:Nalbarian ran a massive sock farm to demoralize and defame me as per this history in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nalbarian/Archive. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:24, 14 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]

06 August 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Pro forma, checked per this doubtful talk page message. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:35, 6 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]

  • Sekhardasghy and PlayOboe are  Confirmed to Nalbarian.  Blocked and tagged. By my count Nalbarian is now at 3X, retagged accordingly. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

All 3 have similar edit and language behavior. Seems Nalbarian is not going to stop socking. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 07:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Frost: as per this], and [this to protect, and as per [[3]]'s response makes something simple to request a SPI. The user Nalbarian must not be taken lightly as they crossed 3x per their sock history. User @Nalbarian: has a massive history of harassing me as per the sock history. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 07:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Frost:
I seek an apology for reformatting as I made a mistake on filing and then tried to correct it. Per this diff, and this diff, after the sock banned on 10:29, 9-September-2021 several socks activated as per this SPI history. Also, this diff while per this no vandalism was there. All of their edits are Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Advanced mobile edit when it is their night time (at day time their edits non-mobile edits). -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 00:20, 16 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]

  • @NeverTry4Me: What are the exact usernames of the accounts you are reporting here? Please provide clear evidence in the forms of diffs (with short explanations of what each diff demonstrates) for each account to demonstrate why you suspect sockpuppetry.  On hold - To allow evidence to be provided, and to establish the appropriate title for this SPI report to be filed. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Additional information needed. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. @NeverTry4Me: --Jack Frost (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17 August 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upendra Mahato (2nd nomination) by Rath Butcher and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upendra Mahato by PlayOboe sockpuppet.

Also there is suspicious behaviour starting out, creating of promotional drafts.

Also asked for undeletion of of Emmbi Industries, that was then speedy deleted and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmbi Industries, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmbi Industries (2nd nomination). This may be linked to JVL29 who is blocked for spam on Draft:Emmbi Industries Limited. JVL29 also setup a sandbox and user page in first edits.

PlayOboe also setup user page and sandbox in first edit.

Rath Butcher also setup sandbox and user page in first edits. Mvqr (talk) 10:43, 17 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]

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Possible  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setting up a userpage and sandbox is not particularly pursuasive and I'm not pursuaded by the other evidence or a close review of the accounts. They may very well be connected, however on the evidence I have I'm not pursuaded to act at this time. Closing. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Blocked by admin User:Ponyo as a suspected sock of NeverTry4Me. Please check if related to this case or not (or an actual NT4M sock). More at User talk:NeverTry4Me#Sockpuppetry 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this but I did not know Ponyo is a CU when filing this. So my bad, I should have known better. However, I did look at Khati Axomiya's contributions and their user talk page and none of them indicated that the block was based on CU evidence. That caused me to think that it was a regular admin action and not a CU-informed block. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:17, 3 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]

  •  Clerk endorsed. Full disclosure, NeverTry4Me asked me to take a look at this case, but given that Nalbarian has repeatedly joe-jobbed NT4M in the past, I think a check would be prudent here, and indeed I'd be inclined to assume this is Nalbarian rather than NT4M if not conclusive to either. NT4M has, despite everything else, been unflinchingly honest with me in every past encounter. There's also one inverse-tell here, something seen in this sock's edits but not any by NT4M, which I'm happy to discuss with any admin or clerk. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 11:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin - I can tell you that CU has already been run twice on Khati Axomiya. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on what makes you question the connection though - feel free to ping me an e-mail. Girth Summit (blether) 11:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was one of the people who ran CU, even though I had originally closed this case without action on the grounds that when a CU does a sockblock, it's usually safe to assume that what needs doing has been done – it did pique my interest though and so I self-reverted that close and checked; Khati Axomiya is technically  Unlikely to the data I could retrieve for Nalbarian, although said data is from a few months ago. They're less unlikely to NT4M, but arguably no more than a weak  Possible. I do see the behavioural match, but I'm afraid CU can't really help answer the question of whether we should treat this as evasion or a possible joe-job. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I also took a look out of curiosity given I've dealt with NT4M before. I second Blablubbs' findings. firefly ( t · c ) 12:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, GS and Blablubbs. Well, I don't see how this is something other than socking or joe-jobbing, so I concur in the block, but in terms of tagging I strongly lean toward the latter. NT4M has complied with blocks in the past, including during his previous indef, and was a victim of joe-jobbing during that indef, so I'd say this is an unusual case where Occam's razor cuts in favor of assuming a joe job. @Ponyo: Thoughts? I've emailed you one additional detail. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran a check prior to blocking Khati Axomiya and found the account was  Possible to NT4M. Because I couldn't exclude NT4M based on the technical evidence, I took a harder look at the behavioural evidence.
  • The Khati account was created on March 1 during NT4M's first indef block. NT4M was unblocked on March 7, the same day Khati stopped editing for a decent stretch.
  • The Khati account stays inactive until NinjaRobotPirate declined NT4M's appeal on October 25 upon which the account is revived and begins editing again.
  • Khati Axomiya has edited only 12 articles, 5 of which were also edited by NT4M (per this overlap), with this edit being particulary suspicious, leading me to start digging around.
  • ...and then there are the edit summaries.
  • It could be a joe-job, though it would be a pretty long-burn, low-key one. Given that two other CUs have already noted that a connection to Nalbarian is  Unlikely, I won't rerun the check. I think everyone here agrees that Khati Axomiya is a sock of someone; if removing the sock tag linking them to NT4M from their talk page with a link to this SPI will put the case to bed, I'm fine with that.-- Ponyobons mots 15:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ponyo works for me. I concur that they're someone's sock, it probably doesn't actually matter all that much whose. firefly ( t · c ) 16:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    entirely not in good standing with NT4M, but suggest @Tamzin or someone who is remind them that editing logged out isn't going to help them either, even if just on their talk.
    Personally (non CU, but Involved admin), his inability to retire coupled with the timing Ponyo laid out above makes me think this is indeed NT4M who is unwilling to understand that their edits are not welcome at this time. Star Mississippi 16:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm closing this. I haven't removed the tag, but I'm not going to fight it out if another clerk wants to remove it. This discussion will be retained in the archive; should future events cast further doubt on the connection we can revisit. Girth Summit (blether) 16:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Pretty obvious (or at least I’m convinced) after the user posting at mw:topic:Xudwlox3htu7w6e0 (since deleted). Tropicalkitty (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it not long ago. Tropicalkitty (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not so obvious despite two accounts mentioning their draft being copied from here and posted elsewhere in similar comments. Tropicalkitty (talk) 10:07, 29 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]

I can't access a deleted post on MediaWiki wiki, but this edit on enwiki is more suspicious. It's only one edit though and apparently all other accounts in this farm are stale so we can't run a CU. @TheresNoTime:, you are both a SPI regular and an admin over at MediaWiki wiki; can you (or someone else) take a look to the deleted page there? Setting this to "moreinfo" in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the post has been restored — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There is a common topic between that post[4] and Nalbarian's request in the help desk[5] that strengthens the suspicion of sockpuppetry. Resetting this to "open". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked. Either the user is using a residential proxy (and at least one tool says that's not it) or they moved continents compared to last socks blocked here and the original account. UA of this account is common, and recent socks are stale. Assessment will need behavioral judgement. Izno (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to close this, mostly as stale. User hasn't edited in 2 months and my prior results did not make a good case for being the same user. Izno (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nalbarian/Archive&oldid=1210306184"