Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


SheryOfficial

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

25 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

All suspected socks are editing in the same area. SheheryarAwais (already blocked) was registered three weeks after the master was blocked and created Nabeel Zubieri earlier created by the master under Nabeel Zuberi. Hydernaline's last edit was in October 2018 and returned yesterday to blank master's version. Mediapakistancommunity was registered two days before SA was blocked and made no edits outside "Nabeel Zubieri" and 122.8.44.102 (Proxy API Checker) appear to involve in vote-fraud. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:29, 25 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]
TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

28 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Newly registered with the same focus on Nabeel Zuberi. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:43, 28 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]

10 March 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

obvious sock, username + overlap...everywhere but particularly here and here Praxidicae (talk) 18:37, 10 March 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]

17 June 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Registered just days after SheheryarandAwais, similar interests, recreating of Draft:Javaid Anwar/Javaid Anwar, chronic copyright problems, IDHT behavior and removal of afd tags. Overlap: here with SheryOfficial and SheheryarAwais, here with SheryOfficial, here, and you get the picture. Praxidicae (talk) 16:56, 17 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]

08 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Suspected puppet has similar name to master and started editing shortly after master was blocked for 3 days. Both have tried creating the now deleted Dilbar Hussain. 7 of the remaining 12 articles edited by puppet have been previously edit by master (found using Interaction utility). Spike 'em (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added another (blocked) editor with similar name and editing tendencies for the record. Spike 'em (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after some more tidying up of some of the articles created by these users, I suspect these may (including the listed master) all be puppets relating to SheryOfficial, particularly in the area of Pakistani political parties / leaders, such as Pak Sarzameen Party / Syed Mustafa Kamal. Spike 'em (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2 more both, similar names to the first listed and similar articles edited (Anis Kaimkhani, Pak Sarzameen Party, Syed Mustafa Kamal, Sohail Akhtar, Rahis Nabi). Spike 'em (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

While not directly related to the master's socking, there are some serious WP:CIR issues with this user. Just take a look at their talkpage, for example. They've created 80 articles, with a third of them being deleted. I recently asked them to confirm that they understand notability requirements, but they have not replied, or indeed, ever replied on a talkpage. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

23 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Following on from the sock-farm from 8th Dec. Another "Fayyaz" username, editing in the same areas/articles. Examples:

Pretty clear WP:DUCK IMO. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:05, 23 December 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]

02 January 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

edits here, here, here (and others) with Fayyaz_Anwar, recreated Naik Alam Praxidicae (talk) 21:03, 2 January 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]
  • Not enough to go on here. Just pointing to article histories isn't really evidence. What we need is specific diffs showing exactly how this account is related to some previous account. Simply recreating Naik Alam doesn't convince me either. Awais created lots of articles about Pakistani footballers. Surely not every fan of Pakistani football is a sock? Maybe a CU would shine some light on this; you can go ahead and request that, but based on what I'm seeing here, there's not enough to justify my making the request myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to step on your toes here, Roy, but this looks pretty cut and dry to me.  Blocked and tagged. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. My toes are pretty tough. Always happy to have a second opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07 January 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Edited articles that were targets of previous socks Hira Fayyaz (HF) and Fayyaz Anwar (FA).

Spike 'em (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock has started creating wrestling articles in a very similar manner to previous sock Fayazz Anwar. Spike 'em (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now has recreated Raja Naveed, which was previously originally created by Fayazz Anwar and deleted via AfD. Spike 'em (talk) 17:17, 9 January 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]

14 February 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Similar name to sock master and many of the subsequent puppets. Amending name of Punjab Stadium similarly to another sock: [1], [2]. Editted Dilbar Hussain, a page frequently created by other socks : [3]. Editting captain on Lahore Qalandars in common with another previous sock: [4], [5] Spike 'em (talk) 12:00, 14 February 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]

No explanation as to why a CU is needed. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress. I changed my mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10 March 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

adding release details to The Donkey King [6] in similar manner to previous sock [7]. Editing List of football clubs in Pakistan [8], a frequent target of other socks : [9]. Editing Dilbar Hussain [10] which was frequently created by previous socks [11], or edited by recent socks : [12]. Editing Football Federation League; most previous edits on this article have been other socks e.g. [13], [14].

As none of the diffs provided have the same content being added I have requested checkuser to aid the behavioural analysis. Spike 'em (talk) 09:00, 10 March 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]

22 April 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

same general overlapping interests as Fayyaz Anwar, recreating Nauman Suleman, Jordan (wrestler), Raja Naveed Praxidicae (talk) 15:56, 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]

29 April 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I dunno if this is a compromised account (no edits since 2014 until now) but they've recreated Tangir District and Darel District, both of which were recently created by Awais Gas. Granted, the articles seem different but I find it highly suspicious that their only edits since 2014 are recreating the same subject as a recently blocked sockmaster. Praxidicae (talk) 13:31, 29 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]
  •  Unlikely/possibly  Inconclusive (IPQS says Meerpk's IPs are proxies, but that's not usually enough to be sure). Taking the CU information at face value, they're in the same country in different regions and ISPs and different devices. Judging behaviorally, I don't think Meerpk's been compromised – their editing style seems consistent with before. I'll leave the final call to someone else but I don't think Meerpk's a sock of this master. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Kevin. Closing without action. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22 May 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account, recreated Ahsanullah Ahmad DannyS712 (talk) 20:22, 22 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]

07 July 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Continuation of same editing pattern makes me think this could be a possible sock puppet account. Govvy (talk) 12:02, 7 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]

16 August 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Every single creation is a recreation of Hassan Shah Nawaz

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]

03 December 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Re-creation of National Club League that was created by Fayyaz Anwar and edits revolve around Pakistan Football related similar to that of Awais Shahbaz edits — Amkgp 💬 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy @L235, Ivanvector, and Praxidicae: for help regarding this. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at a glace to the logs of National Club League page, one can find the beginning lines are copy-paste of October 2019 version. — Amkgp 💬 18:50, 3 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]
  •  Possible - overlaps with past socks on some small but very busy and very spammy IP ranges, but the case is stale so I can't do any better than that. The deleted version of National Club League is indeed nearly identical to the current version, including the odd way of presenting the league's abbreviation in the first sentence. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04 December 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New IP editor disruptively adding the name of a deleted article (mass deleted articles of User:Hassan Shah Nawaz) to a non-related article 1st diff of 3 in a row JW 1961 Talk 21:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@GeneralNotability: for further help — Amkgp 💬 04:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

15 December 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Please have a look @Ivanvector: Recreation of Muhammad Waheed and Naik Alam that was created by Alikhan7770 — Amkgp 💬 14:39, 15 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]

13 March 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Creation and insertion of the same hoax term and cat (kabadder/kabbadar) [this term is not found/user anywhere expect by the socks here] as the previous sock. Exact recreation of a deleted bio as created by a previous sock.

Along with other overlapping hoaxes and disruptive edits seems like a WP:DUCK to me but asking for a CU to weed other socks since this wasn't caught the last time. Gotitbro (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Biskut Merry, which created Javaid Anwar (edited and created by socks in the past). Gotitbro (talk) 18:55, 14 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]

27 March 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

All of these accounts have made edits to either the latest version of Amir Jordan or the latest version of Draft:Amir Jordan, a non-notable wrestler who has already been deleted via AFD. There is a focus on professional wrestlers from Pakistan. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 27 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]
 Stale:
CreativeUsername22 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Bagging and tagging sock accounts. This SPI can be closed... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01 April 2021

[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]
Too  Stale - no checkuser data:
SheryOfficial (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13 May 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Disruptive edits by the master and the sock on same articles and topics (Islam, Pakistan, Fiji), with the sock/master supporting each other when [repeatedly] reverted by other editors.

E.g.: Master1, sock1; Master 2, sock 2; Master 3, sock 3.

Asking for CU since this appears to be related to another sockpuppeteer. Gotitbro (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding AliMurtazaYT, which has wide overlap with the master. Gotitbro (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

partly copied from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial: I believe the link between AliMurtazaYT (who since the last entry here on 13 May has been blocked as a sockmaster of AliAtherJee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 25 May) and SharqHabib merits further investigation. There are 23 articles they have both edited, which are mostly Pakistan-related, but also includes an article on the Turkish screenwriter Mehmet Bozdağ, an article on Football in Fiji (Fiji not exactly being Pakistan-related), and somewhat 'specialized' religious articles such as Signs of the appearance of Mahdi, Holiest sites in Shia Islam, and the article on the number 4 (both edits related to fourfold religious phenomena [15], [16]). Perhaps a CU could compare the two?

SajidMir2 and SharqHabib may be unlikely to each other according to the technical evidence, but there are 56 articles edited by both of them. Again mostly Pakistan related, but also such articles as Tekhelet in Judaism (AliMurtazaYT was also interested in Judaism [17], [18], [19]), Holiest sites in Shia Islam, Jihadist flag, the File:Bahria Town logo (cropped).png, Islam in Fiji (Fiji cropping up again) and yes, the number 4.

All in all, there are 15 articles edited by SajidMir2, SharqHabib, and AliMurtazaYT, among them Balawaristan, the Palestinian-American YouTube personality Yousef Erakat, the Iraqi-American YouTuber FaZe Rug, the article on the Islamic Messianic concept of the Mahdi, the Islamic typographical symbol Rub el Hizb and, as mentioned, the number 4. So many shared special interests are extremely unlikely to be coincidental.

partly copied from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SharqHabib: At the very least, there clearly has been some off-wiki coordination between SajidMir2 and SharqHabib. At the article on the Pakistani real-estate company Bahria Town, SharqHabib [20] removed COI, Peacock and POV templates while adding promotional content to the lead and removing controversial content about the son of the founder of the company being listed in the Panama Papers, all without any explanation. SajidMir2 never edited that article, but they did upload a cropped version of the Bahria Town logo, a file which was edited 5 minutes later by SharqHabib (see here). Since SajidMir2 didn't add the file to any article (it is their last contribution to date), there was no other way to know about this for SharqHabib than off-wiki. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • SharqHabib and SajidMir2 have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. It may be a single actor or multiples coordinating off-wiki. In any case they have been engaging in the same type of disruptive behavior, same articles, same summaries and so on. Each demonstrates a lack of willingness to collaborate or respond to notifications left on their talk page, even after receiving short blocks. When pressed, their limited responses are simply abusive. [21] [22] Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU was run (or declined), everyone involved has been blocked. At this time I don't see a pressing need to establish the precise nature of the relationship between the accounts, leaving untagged. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

29 June 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]
  • Same type of discruptive editing and both accounts were blocked for the same reasons with an expiration of time.
  • Many of their edits are identical to SheryOfficial like some professional boxing related articles (KSI, Usman Wazeer) etc.
  • See SharqHabib's talk page same type of copyright problems also for which SheryOfficial was blocked many times. 59.103.204.242 (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

It seems that SheryOfficial never edited either KSI or Usman Wazeer, and their SPI archive (which describes their many socks' behavior) doesn't even mention the word 'boxing'. Sharqhabib made exactly one edit to KSI [23] and to Usman Wazeer [24], so that leaves us with SajidMir2, who made six edits to KSI-related articles but none to Usman Wazeer. Such superficial overlap in edited articles is meaningless here. Copyrights problems are also pretty common and form no basis for linking accounts. Block expiration time is chosen by admins and has absolutely nothing to do with SPI.

You will need to show us much more specific evidence, preferably in the form of diffs showing similarities in the actual edits. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Usman Wazeer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been created by User:KaimkhaniKamal, a sock of SheryOfficial. It's true that SharqHabib also edited that article, as did User:AliMurtazaYT and User:AliAtherJee, the latter of whom has been blocked as a sock of the former by Bbb23. AliMurtazaYT has been linked to SharqHabib in the open SPI case on SajidMir2, and I believe the link between AliMurtazaYT and SharqHabib merits further investigation. There are 23 articles they have both edited, which are mostly Pakistan-related, but also includes an article on the Turkish screenwriter Mehmet Bozdağ, an article on Football in Fiji (Fiji not exactly being Pakistan-related), and somewhat 'specialized' religious articles such as Signs of the appearance of Mahdi, Holiest sites in Shia Islam, and the article on the number 4 (both edits related to fourfold religious phenomena [25], [26]). Perhaps a CU could compare the two, as well as some recent confirmed socks of SheryOfficial? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to Oshwah, the technical evidence between SajidMir2 and SharqHabib shows them to be unlikely to each other, but there are 56 articles edited by both of them. Again mostly Pakistan related, but also such articles as Tekhelet in Judaism (AliMurtazaYT was also interested in Judaism [27], [28], [29]), Holiest sites in Shia Islam, Jihadist flag, the File:Bahria Town logo (cropped).png, Islam in Fiji (Fiji cropping up again) and yes, the number 4. All in all, there are 15 articles edited by SajidMir2, SharqHabib, and AliMurtazaYT, among them Balawaristan, the Palestinian-American YouTube personality Yousef Erakat, the Iraqi-American YouTuber FaZe Rug, the article on the Islamic Messianic concept of the Mahdi, the Islamic typographical symbol Rub el Hizb and, as mentioned, the number 4. So many shared special interests are extremely unlikely to be coincidental. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

I suspect this SPI report was created due to a suggestion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SharqHabib. SharqHabib's edits have been problematic. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


10 July 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Disruptive editing and same type of interest area of many of the articles like Hamid Mir, Names and titles of Jesus in the Quran, Masih (title) and vice versa and same type of ignoring warnings at talk page.59.103.209.219 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

RaziNaama edits on many of the same pages as disruptive sock-/meatpuppet SharqHabib, including three pages recently created by the latter (Youthiya, for which RaziNaama also created a redirect; Names and titles of Jesus in the Quran; Draft:Slimmofication). Since this is very likely a block evasion by a disruptive user, a CU check is advised to more easily follow up in the future. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SharqHabib. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User account created shortly after SharqHabib (also a sock) was blocked and then got to work on the the same articles SharqHabib had been editing-- Names and titles of Jesus in the Quran, Holiest sites in Shia Islam, Masih (title), Draft:Slimmofication, and several others. Duck. PepperBeast (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

18 July 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Edits about studenthood of Shahvaar Ali Khan[30][31], modification of the flag in Turks in Pakistan,[32][33], expansion of Peace TV,[34][35] and modification of % of population at Hinduism in Fiji[36][37] shows that this account has been created for evading the block on the suspected master. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Created the day after the last one got blocked, edits on the same peculiar set of topics as SajidMir2 and (especially) as SharqHabib. Clear block-evading duck. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, similarities in name as well: Huwalhabib, SharqHabib.182.190.207.90 (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Endorsing this request for CheckUser as a patrolling admin, and respectfully ask to check for additional sleepers. The Huwalhabib account was created within 48 hours after RaziNaama, another CU-confirmed sock, was blocked. The editing patterns and target articles are identical. (WP:DUCK) Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30 July 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


@TheresNoTime: Editing only for 2 days and already having strong overlap.[38][39], [40][41] Raymond3023 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 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]

09 August 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

shows the same interest area of editing on many articles.59.103.205.245 (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC) 59.103.205.245 (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salamun44 needs to be checked because this account was created just 5 days ago and is continuing edits on same articles as Sajidmir2.[42][43], [44][45] Ratnahastin tålk 14:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
  • Same type of discruptive editing

Intersection with previous sockpuppet is compelling;

In particular at Paki (slur) there is this by Isaayi and this by Salamun44 where they both use an opinion piece citing a single person's claim it isn't a slur to claim it's not seem as offensive by the wider population. I haven't looked in the editing similarities at other atticles, I have little doubt thre will be some. FDW777 (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Salamun44 has been blocked as another WP:DUCK, and respectfully request to check for additional sleepers. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21 August 2021

[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]

22 August 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


At Template:Islam and other religions, reinstates same change as previous sockpuppet. At Islam and Sikhism resinstates Islam and Sikhism are both monotheistic religions wording added by another previous sockpupet. FDW777 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@Yamaguchi先生: since you are somewhat familiar with this case, would you take a look at the behavioral evidence (also for ChampeonZekz above)? I would add that like SajidMir2 [46] and previous sockpuppets SharqHabib [47] [48] and AliMurtazaYT [49] [50] [51], Semonlee combines an interest in Judaism and Islam with an interest in the holy cities and sites of these two religions [52] (see the 'Holy sites' section) [53]. Like SharqHabib [54] [55] [56], they also engage in the creation of content forks largely copied from other WP pages without attribution [57]. Seems like a duck to me. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

24 August 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

A couple of new ones created since the last check. Yamaguchi e-mailed me them, I believe under the mistaken impression that I'm still a CheckUser. Behaviorally, they seem obvious to me, so I blocked them without tags and am simply looking for a check for others given that two of them have been created on the same day. Dogrilo is easy, given his removal of the redirect at Eloah, which is the same thing Semonlee did a few days ago. Then you can tie Khalifahtun to Dogrilo with their intersection on Ottoman Caliphate. If more behavioral evidence is needed, I'm sure that Yamaguchi and others can provide it. This is not a topic area in which I excel.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's Yamaguchi先生. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Yes, Dogrilo [58] is fairly obvious when compared to SemonLee [59] (I'd also note that this sockmaster likes to create content forks and unneeded articles, and regularly does so from redirects [60] [61] [62] [63]).

I'm less sure of Khalifahtun: POVishly removing content like here and here is fairly typical of this master, as is the focus on flags (ctrl-f "flag" in the archives) [64] [65] [66], but it's not a lot to go on. They definitely look like a sock, but a CU would be helpful to confirm to SajidMir2.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

25 August 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Kelzom has disruptively edited the following articles:

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]

26 August 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


A new account with 2 edits, both undoing reversals of a number of previous SajidMir2 sockpuppets done by Zakaria1978. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 06:06, 26 August 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]

11 September 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Registered today. Raising the bar of importance of Umayyad Mosque in Islam like the master[73][74] and overhauling of Balawaristan National Front (Naji).[75][76]

Also compare [77] and [78]. Duck is quacking.

Pinging TheresNoTime. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Similar language use at Ibadi Islam [79] [80] (adding also called and –especially– are known as the '''Ibadis'''), an article which has been targeted by at least five SajidMir2 socks [81] [82] [83] [84] [85].
  • The article Nawaz Khan Naji has only 21 edits in total, yet three out of these edits are by MullahBalawar [86], by SajidMir2 [87], and by one of SajidMir2's socks [88]. (there's not enough here for an editing pattern though)
  • Interest in flags [89] and symbols [90] (ctrl-f the archives for "flag" and "symbol")

There are three things of which I'm sure here:

  1. MullahBalawar is a disruptive user (much in the vein of SajidMir2: adding, removing and reorganizing information without basis in sources) and should be blocked ASAP.
  2. MullahBalawar is a sock of someone (early edits are beans).
  3. Of MullahBalawar's 51 edits so far quite a lot are on the same articles targeted by SajidMir2 and their socks.

However, I'm still not entirely confident that they're a sock of SajidMir2. Most likely that's because they are trying harder to hide it this time (what with the 'this user supports Taliban' user box), though there are other things such as lack of a clearly similar agenda (I've not yet found any reinstating of SajidMir2's socks' many reverted edits, and some of their edits actually undo minor things done by SajidMir2 and their socks).

Whatever the outcome here, please do block them soon for disruption and sockpuppetry. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

12 September 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


SheryOfficial created Zaid Ali[107] and Abdulhaseebatd created Zaid Ali T (different title to evade salting).[108]

SheryOfficial also uploaded the image "File:Shaveer Jafry's Photo.jpg."[109] and Abdulhaseebatd uploaded File:Shahveer Jafry.jpg.[110]

SheryOfficial and Abdulhaseebatd also worked to promote Shaveer Jafry.[111][112]

This user seems to be a part the paid editing sock farm. Editorkamran (talk) 02:38, 12 September 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]
  • I'm not seeing any reason to think Abdulhaseebatd is SheryOfficial and lots of technical reasons to think they're not. That's not to say they're not a sock of somebody else, but I didn't go fishing. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

29 August 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Both engaged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javaid Anwar (3rd nomination) Saqib (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Rimsha Mustafa Khan is the older account of the two as such they would be the master.

WeLeventae registered their account and then their first edit was to blank an afd, the fact that the first edit was at an afd alone suggests that they have edited Wikipedia before.

Note also that a creator of the articles previous incarnation, User:SheryOfficial has been blocked for sockpuppetry, could this be them, rather than a seperate master, @Saqib:? Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought these looked like more SheryOfficial socks. I actually suspect that User:Biskut Merry is also a sock. PepperBeast (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: you've dealt with Sheryoffical in the past, what is your opinion? Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also just seen this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SheryOfficial/Archive#13 March 2021, @Mz7: who dealt with it that time. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

13 September 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

For starters, MullahBalawar is clearly not new as evidence by their first edit being: the creation of "This user supports Taliban." userbox (which may merit scrutiny aside from socking.

What triggered my suspicion here is that MullahBalawar showed up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eid-e-Shuja' an hour after it was nominated by Biskut Merry.

I then examined the user interaction tool and saw these two 100 edit accounts intersecting on 5 articles which is high, some of whom are fairly niche.

Editing times are broadly similar.

There is also this slip on Biskut Merry's user page that suggests a longer record. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

The overlap now already concerns 7 articles, one of which is voting the same way in an Afd, and another one voting the same way in a requested move, on a rather unrelated topic (though both are generally related to religion). I'll note that interest in multiple religions is also typical of SajidMir2, where MullahBalawar is also a suspected sock. TheresNoTime, since you already checked for SajidMir2, would also you take a look at this one? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The overlap and sharing of POV on Paul the Apostle (Biskut Merry, MullahBalawar is very interesting. This shifts the common POV from just Sunni Pakistan/Afghan topics to a predominately Christian topic, and as evident in the move discussion this is a very small minority view on naming.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

These two accounts are confirmed to several currently mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SajidMir2. I think it's better dealt with there. Deferred to the clerks.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16 September 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Suhayebal doesn't just have a strong overlap with MullahBalawar (talk · contribs) [113], they edited almost exactly the same articles in the last few days [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]. One name that also appears in the majority of these article histories is Biskut Merry (cf. overlap with MullahBalawar). Suhayebal has a strong interest in flags (cf. the archives) [122] [123] [124] and Biskut Merry is strongly interested in holiest sites of Islam (cf. the archives) [125] [126].

Both Suhayebal and the IP edited an un-redirect of MullahBalawar [127], containing a POV fork of Druze, an intersectional religous topic typical of SajidMir2.

Note that Biskut Merry is an older account than SajidMir2 (also still has their own case open). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Hi, Suhayebal here, yes I am a sock of SajidMir2, which itself is a sock of SheryOfficial. I did not intend to cause damage to Wikipedia, by disruptive edits but my foolishness caused me. I am not even going to lie and just tell the truth. Suhayebal, Biskut Merry and also WeLeventae are my accounts. I recently created JamlanRafaiyid, you can block that too. I am just going to be honest at this point. I am honestly sick and tired of doing the same thing again and again. Make more accounts, causing damage to Wikipedia and then edits being reverted. This is my list of accounts:

  • SheryOfficial, SheheryarAwais, JafferAwan, SheheryarOfficial, SheheryarandAwais, MyNameIsJanMangu, Fayyaz Anwar, SAFSOfficial, FayyazFamily, SheheryarFayyazOfficial, Shehryar Fayyaz, Hira Fayyaz, Awais Gas, Shield Has, ShehzadaShery, Awais Shahbaz, Qazi Shah, ShahiShield, Hassan Shah Nawaz, Meshanigo, MrBakar, KaimkhaniKamal, MianJawaad, Dugsen, Wordynilo, SharqHabib, RaziNaama, AliMurtazaYT, AliAther, Huwalhabib, Isaayi, UmatiKhan, Salamun44, ChampeonZekz, Semonlee, Kelzom, Dogrilo, Khaliafatun, AbnayZahra, Suhayebal, Biskut Merry, WeLeventae, JamlanRafaiyid and probably more I don't even remember.

I made my first account SheryOfficial, three years ago, which was blocked for copyright reasons. At that time, I had no idea what was copyright so after I was blocked, I made more accounts and then was blocked for sockpuppetry. I had no idea what was sockpuppetry at that time. From that time, till now, I have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Can this get fixed? Its been three years, I have learned a lot. Also, most of my recent edits on Suhayebal and MullahBalawar should prove that I am not making disruptive edits anymore. There might be one or two disruptive edits but 95% of the edits I have done on Wiki by these two latest accounts weren't disruptive. Its been three years on Wikipedia, making millions of edits and articles. Can I please get unblocked and just have a single simple account. Is there any way, all these mass of accounts be deleted? I just want to say my intentions were not to damage Wikipedia. Suhayebal, 16 September 2021, 1:08 (PST)

  • Just logged in from Biskut Merry to confirm the message of Suhayebal. BiskutMerry, 16 Septemebr 2021, 1:12


Hello Suhayebal/Biskut Merry! Are you also Zaidothi (talk · contribs)? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apaugasma, yes Zaidothi is an account I created like a week ago from my uncle's computer. Biskut Merry, 2:01 16 September 2021 (PST)
Hello SajidMir2/SheryOfficial/Suhayebal/Biskut Merry. Thank you for being up front. Let me start by also being up front: you're going to get blocked again. If I don't do it then someone else surely will. If you continue to edit then you're going to continue to get blocked. The thing is, you're going to have to appeal the block using your original account (WP:GAB#Sockpuppetry_blocks). I'm not familiar with what disruption you usually cause, apart from the sockpuppetry which is itself disruptive, but you seem to already know some of it and you'll find some of it listed in previous complaints. You'll need to address these concerns using your original account. Any other use of accounts, except to confirm your ownership, is not going to go down well. You've been effectively banned by the community (WP:3X), but we have a standard offer in situations like this: Wikipedia:Standard offer. Be sure to read it carefully. It might work or it might not, but whether it does work is down to you: honouring the offer, and especially addressing any disruption, even if it is 5% (which is quite high by the way). -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Just a quick CU note to get things going, Suhayebal and Biskut Merry (plus a whole lot more) are confirmed to both SajidMir2 and SheryOfficial. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked all the names in the list above, but the list looks credible. Most seem to be already blocked and/or stale. JafferAwan is probably spelled Jaffer Awan, though there's no direct confirmation of ownership. Khaliafatun is another typo, and there may be others.

I'm going to confirm the following:

This is not an exhaustive list. If anyone has any questions about other accounts, I can take a look.

So it seems to me these belong in a merge:

I'm not sure how many other related SPIs we have lying around. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08 October 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Similar interest in intersection of Sunni vs Shi'i Islam, as well as other religions ([128] and cf. archives). Same disruptive style of editing (unsourced content changes) on the same type of articles ([129] vs [130]; [131] vs [132] [133] [134] [135]; examples of the general style [136] [137] [138] [139]). Copyright problems [140]. There's also some private evidence that I've e-mailed to TheresNoTime (I'll e-mail this evidence to any admin on request). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:30, 8 October 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]

09 October 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Lahur52 edited an article created by UmatiKhan and also edited by Salamun44 (and not by too many others) in SheryOfficial's disruptive style (sweeping unexplained replacements & removals) [141], inexplicably adding "Muhammad SAW" to the end of a paragraph, exactly like ShuratiMuslim did recently [142] [143]. The one other article they edited (in the same disruptive style) [144] was also edited six times by Salamun44 [145].

Karbalayifikr was already speaking about a historical figure called Abdullah ibn Umayr as "Omayr" (a rather idiosyncratic mistake: it's a bit like speaking about Eddie Van Halen as "Haylen") on 25 September [146], a week before MirzaAkhtarJan changed the references to the name in the article to "Omayr" [147], and two weeks before OmayrAlive was created. One day after MirzaAkhtarJan started editing the Abdullah ibn Umayr page, Karbalayifikr moved it to "Omayr" [148]. Karbalayifikr also colluded with MirzaAkhtarJan on Umm Wahab, and edited an article visited a week later by both OmayrAlive and Jangesiddiqgustakh [149] [150] [151].

I know that a grand sweep has just been done by TheresNoTime, but SheryOfficial has been known to edit from different computers, so another one may be needed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:19, 9 October 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]

30 October 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Al-Saaba was recently blocked as a suspected SheryOfficial sock by Bbb23. This sock was concerned with the article Abdullah ibn Saba', where one idiosyncratic change they wanted to make was to remove the name "al-Ḥimyarī" from the article [152]. Now Amerulmomen shows up and removes that name from the article [153], also pushing the same general POV (i.e., that Abdullah ibn Saba' was a historical figure) as Al-Saaba, and as ShuratiMuslim before them at a related page [154].

Amerulmomen's first ~40 edits were all removing the title "Amir al-Mu'minin" from the articles of lesser known caliphs (the Amir al-Mu'minin article has itself been a favorite target of SheryOfficial socks [155] [156] [157] [158]), but their last ~10 edits were to intersectional religious topics typical for SheryOfficial (see also the interaction graph). They also show the typical disruptive style of massive unsourced changes.

Given the large amount of sleepers found the last few times, a thorough CU check is strongly recommended. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:46, 30 October 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]

05 November 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Reinstates edits [159] [160] made by SheryOfficial socks [161] [162]. I could give more detailed behavioral evidence if needed, but a CU check may be more effective. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: here's some behavioral evidence for Muqtada al-Azadar: second edit creates redirect [163]; boldly moving pages [164] [165] [166]; interest in intersection of religions [167]. There's no reasonable doubt it's them. Thanks for taking this on! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith! Muqtada al-Azadar created two pages (like SheryOfficial socks often do), Naaf War and Naaf conflict, which I prematurely put up for G5 yesterday, but which were rightly denied (sorry for creating extra work Liz, won't make that mistake again!) because the sockmaster hadn't been formally identified yet. Could you look at the behavioral evidence above and consider reblocking them as SheryOfficial socks so these pages can get G5'd? Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not sure I'll be able to get into that right now, so I'll just throw this back on the open queue for somebody to look at. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I dug into this a bit, mostly relying on Dreamy's report below, plus a little of my own (non-CU) poking about. I can't quite get to being confident enough that I'd reblock without doing a lot more digging, and to be honest, if the only goal here is to be able to G5 something, it doesn't seem worth the effort. If the article is problematic, go the AfD route. Sorry I couldn't accommodate you on this one. I'm going to re-close this. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 6 November 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]

15 November 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This editor is repeatedly making the same edit to Zayd ibn Umar as SheryOfficial socks Al-Saaba and YaAleMawla:

  1. 20-22 October 2021 Al-Saaba
  2. 06:30, 5 November 2021 YaAleMawla
  3. 18:39, 15 November 2021 119.73.112.174
  4. 18:54, 15 November 2021 119.73.112.174
  5. 19:07, 15 November 2021 119.73.112.174 -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:25, 15 November 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]

12 November 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Evidence. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Behavioral for Youşafzi (talk · contribs): edits on topics relating to the intersection between religions (cf. the archives, from below) [168]; 3 out of 9 edits were on Mawlid, 3 others on Bektashi Order, both favorite SheryOfficial targets ([169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] and [175] [176] [177] [178]). They combine these general intersectional religious interests with a much more idiosyncratic interest in a mosque in Albania: [179] [180] [181]. There's no doubt it's them.

Since Mudassar1967 (talk · contribs) hasn't edited, there's obviously no behavioral evidence to evaluate. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is one, now deleted, edit to do a Indian film "Raghuveer". However, if this is not like any other sock of this case then it can simply be left. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • @Tamzin: It's hard to look at all of the socks' contributions as there are so many, but I don't believe that SO created Indian entertainment articles. In the beginning SO created some entertainment-related articles, but they were Pakistani. Also, I don't recall the socks creating articles on their userpages, nor in such an incompetent fashion (the infobox template was incomplete). If you wish to dig further to see if there is such a sock, that's up to you, but if it were my call, I wouldn't block Mudassar.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10 January 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


All of these edit on intersectional religious topics, and share SheryOfficial's disruptive style (compare the archives for both). There are two more types of behavorial evidence which really make it clear it's them. However, given the LTA nature of this case I do not want to share these two types of evidence on-wiki. I have mailed some of the evidence to TheresNoTime (who already blocked PZMir), and I would be more than happy to send it to any clerk or admin who would like to work on this case.

I propose to first run them through a CU check, and if any of them needs evaluation of the behavioral evidence, I can provide diffs here or send them by email. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:30, 10 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]

31 March 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:32, 31 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]

Filing for posterity.  Likely to  Confirmed, and the m-o checks out. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20 May 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I have good evidence that this is likely SheryOfficial. However, I do not wish to put this up on-wiki for beans reasons. There are at least two CheckUsers to whom I have mailed everything needed to recognize them back in January (that is, at least to justify running a CU). That's of course a while ago, but I can send the information again. Any CheckUser willing to look into this, please ping me or mail me, and I'll send you the evidence by mail. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: the information needed to recognize this account as a SO sock may already be on this page on CU Wiki. Of course, I can make things easier by mailing some diffs. Please just let me know.
There are also some things I am willing to share here which might be enough to run a CU. Just like the accounts blocked by CaptainEek (see the 31 March section), this account has mainly been used to move pages. Also note the typical focus on controversial intersectional religious topics (cf. the archives), with first edits to Jesus in Islam (cf. [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187]; SajidMir2 = SO), Abd Allah ibn Saba (cf. [188] [189] [190] [191]), Assassination of Uthman (cf. [192]), etc. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:54, 22 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]

22 May 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


  • Timeline: SheryOfficial (hence: SO) was creating a lot of accounts c. July 2021 – November 2021 (archives show three case sections for July, seven for August, four for September, three for October and three for November), after which the rate of account creation suddenly dropped. Both IP ranges, on the other hand, edited only sporadically before December 2021, but started editing in earnest in December 2021 (cf. the lower end of their last 1000 contribs [193] [194]).
  • Note that 119.73.112.174 was already reported here and blocked for a short time on 15 November 2021.
  • I used the IP-range calculator tool to put all the individual IPs above together, and the outcome was the two /24 ranges as reported.

I have not seen an edit from one of these two ranges which did not look like SO edits in focus and style. I therefore recommend indefinitely blocking both ranges. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:45, 22 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]

27 May 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same pattern as before:

  • Note for posterity: first edits to Abu Bakr, a SO favorite.

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:47, 27 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]

12 June 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Please also look for other accounts. Please also consider blocking the underlying ranges from creating accounts (at least two have been behaviorally proven now, see Archive#22 May 2022). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:12, 12 June 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]

13 June 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Edits same pages as recent confirmed socks [251]. There's more, but I'd rather not say here. It's them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding for easy recognition, [252] vs [253] & [254] vs [255]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:38, 17 June 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]

23 June 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Edits on controversial intersectional religious topics (cf. archives) in the typical disruptive style. There's also obvious per CUwiki, e-mail me for more evidence if needed. Please also look for other accounts. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:28, 23 June 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]

Had a go but I find doing this on an iPad isn’t working well for me, so over to someone else, sorry. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

AzlamPak2:

[256] vs [257]

[258] vs [259] [260]

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now also noting MixenXIX and YazidLA, two accounts recently blocked by RegentsPark that were not yet mentioned here but that may be relevant from a CU perspective. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:49, 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]

14 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Should be good enough for a CU check:

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:03, 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]

15 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

[267] (cf. [268]). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:51, 15 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]

25 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Started an RM in January 2022 [269] which was edited two hours later by socking IP range Special:Contributions/119.73.112.0/24 [270] per the usual pattern established on 22 May 2002. The RM was supported two days later by socking IP range Special:Contributions/119.63.138.0/24 [271]. The page itself was moved 6 months later by ShabberMojtaba [272].

Reinstates SO edits [273], copying the edsum from good faith user Iskandar323 [274] (just noting this last bit for posterity; they've also copied my edsums in the past).

Asking CU to look for sleepers, but if it's inconclusive (as it was on 10 January 2022, when this account was first reported), I can send more evidence by e-mail. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:11, 25 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]

01 August 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Another old account that came out of the woodwork:

It's them. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral evidence for ImamMoavia:
Behavioral evidence for Immaon:
  • Came out of the woodwork like Mandiyuni and other recent SO socks (evidence above): no edits between 18 April 2021 and 27 July 2022 [302]
  • The one article they edited before they recently came out of the woodwork was also targeted by SO socks: [303] [304] vs [305] [306]
  • Since they have come out of the woodwork all of their edits seem to have revolved around Qatari football, which is rather unusual for SO. However, using sock accounts in SPA style itself is something they have often done before; also note that both Immaon and ImamMoavia recently edited our article on the first emir of Qatar [307]. Furthermore, Immaon's bold moving of pages as well as focus on transliteration do strongly remind of SO. There are numerous other little things which personally convince me that this is indeed SO, but I will not mention these onwiki. I am willing to share them with any admin or clerk by email, though combined with the technical evidence I think what has been mentioned here should suffice.
Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:55, 1 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]

03 August 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Came out of the woodwork, focus on Islamic extremism, collusion with other socks ([308] [309]), copies edsums from good-faith users ([310] vs [311] [312] [313]; courtesy ping Iskandar323), SO has rarely quacked so loud (compare last few reports). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:20, 3 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]

04 August 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account created on 10 November 2021 but started editing yesterday, like recent SO socks. Their 2 edits so far are on an Islamist terrorist and on a flag used by jihadist and other militant groups, both previously edited by SO socks [314] [315]. Behavioral is a little thinner here than before, but still enough for a CU check. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:26, 4 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]

27 August 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

same shitty page moves as Abubrix see the following: Kam Bakhsh, Azam Shah etc.... PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yes, this is pretty clear. Note that HistoryofIran already moved the pages back, now see [316] and [317]. Also see [318] vs [319]. I'm not entirely sure, but their editing style is similarly disruptive and they edit on articles recently targeted by SO socks [320] [321] [322] [323] [324]. Could still be coincidence, but it does seem enough for a CU check. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't realize an SPI was already made [325]. But yeah, these diffs and the users general edit pattern screams sockpuppetry imo. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

01 December 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Most of this user's brief history involves attempts to restore contested page moves by blocked sock KhaimkhaniKamal: [326][327][328]. Spicy (talk) 05:38, 1 December 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]

09 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Reinstates old edits by SO socks:

Moves pages disruptively [336] [337], as the majority of recent SO socks did (see the most recent sections in the archive).

Similar content focus, such as Islamic extremism (e.g., [338] [339] [340] [341] etc.; cf. the archives) and 'professional boxers with a YouTube career' (e.g. [342] [343] and 14 more edits vs [344] [345]; [346] [347] vs [348] [349] [350] [351])

I suspect they are using some other accounts too, so CU please take a look. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:21, 9 January 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]

11 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Another older one:

There's one giveaway which makes me 99% sure it's them, which I will e-mail to any clerk or admin upon request.

CU please look for others. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:10, 11 January 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]

12 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account reinstating recent sock TatesTopG's revisions [355] vs [356]; [357] vs [358]

CU please look for others. It would be nice if they could also be immediately blocked, so I can proceed with clean-up. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:07, 12 January 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]

12 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP reinstating recent sock TatesTopG's revisions, starting 2 minutes apart from Raymundlemay (talk · contribs) in the case section above [359] vs [360].

Geolocation doesn't match, but may be a proxy. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:17, 12 January 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]

14 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account, engaging from start in the same mass moves of Arabic-origin names to Arabic transliteration spelling. — kashmīrī TALK 14:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I had this one on my radar, because of the general overlapping topic interest (see, e.g., [361], combining historical Islamic figures with YouTubers/boxers such as KSI and Chunkz). I was half-expecting them to turn out on a CU check, but the very different style and the fact that they change some Arabic transliterations (in normal article edits) in ways different from SO socks gave me enough pause to not outright report them. But yes, now they are also disruptively moving pages, though still not always changing transliterations like SO sock used to do.

I think that at least a CU check for this one specifically is now warranted, but if the technical evidence doesn't align I'd say the behavorial is not enough at this time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Already blocked indefinitely to prevent further edit warring. I'll leave this open as checkuser has been requested. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't look like SheryOfficial from a technical perspective - completely new set of IP ranges, geolocating to a different continent. They are  Confirmed to Imam huud, which I will block as an extension of ToBeFree's block of the main account, but that looks to have been a case of someone creating an account, abandoning it and then creating another one - if the main account wasn't already blocked, I wouldn't be blocking here, and they have not used that account to evade their current block. Girth Summit (blether) 19:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

30 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same peculiar combination of editing interest (e.g., [362]); [363] vs [364]; same editing style; undiscussed & transliteration-related page moves.

In addition to this there is one piece of evidence which makes me absolutely sure it's them, but which for beans reasons I will only e-mail to any clerk or admin upon request. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma lay it on me, please. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail sent :-) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:11, 30 January 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]

12 March 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same topic area, disruptive moves, but most significantly the dead giveaway I e-mailed in the 30 January case which should now be on cu-wiki (if it's not clear feel free to e-mail me).

They've also been heavily active on 119.63.138.0/24 ever since the block there expired (cf. this report; almost everything coming from that range is clearly them, e.g. [365] [366]; they've also got the giveaway mentioned above).

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:42, 12 March 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]

22 April 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

[367] vs [368][369][370]

How to reach the /24 should be clear from the giveaway uploaded to cuwiki on 30 January 2023. March and April edits all conform in typical subject area and style.

If the bit about the range should be unclear please feel free to email me. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Range fell silent after this report and recent edits do not seem to be them. This can be closed now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:49, 12 May 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]

16 May 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

At Iranians, they restored [371] the exact controversial edit of blocked sock Zazas99 [372] HistoryofIran (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Thanks for blocking them. Since they have a history of socking through several users at the same time, could a CheckUser please be done just to be safe? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:31, 16 May 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]

11 June 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Exact same case as last SPI:

Brand new user, at Iranians, they restored [373] the exact controversial edit of the socks of Dolyn [374] [375] HistoryofIran (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC) HistoryofIran (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

An IP on my talk page asked me whether AlbaniaeDominus and MawlidistMan aren't in fact Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. And indeed they are, as is the Marmidukay account (archive), per the same evidence as the 30 January 2023 SheryOfficial case (especially the beans stuff uploaded to cuwiki).

@RoySmith: I e-mailed you the beans evidence last time so you should be able to find it in these accounts. I can also e-mail you with a few diffs if that's easier, just let me know.

When everything is properly tagged it's probably a good idea to ask someone to merge this case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU request: the key to recognizing these accounts (and Marmidukay) behaviorally as SheryOfficial should be on cuwiki (uploaded 30 January 2023), but I'm ready to e-mail it to any admin or CU (just ping me). I'm asking CU to look for other SheryOfficial accounts, since it's very likely that they created new accounts after the ones listed above were blocked. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]


12 August 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Within a day after the year-long block on 119.73.112.0/24 expired (see the archive here for massive evidence of SheryOfficial's use of this range), SheryOfficial (SO) were already using it again:

In my experience, the /24 is rarely used by anyone else in this case. I've been monitoring it for a week, and what I've seen is ~50 edits that were almost all made by SO:

  • The edits are in the same topic areas (historical Islamic figures, Islamism and Islamic extremism; compare the /24's contribs with the archives for favorite SO targets such as Mawlid, Bektashi Order, al-Albani and Albanian topics in general).
  • The edits also have the same type of focus (very often transliteration or moving sources outside of the lead/infobox, cf. the diffs above).
  • Finally, the edits have the giveaway noted on cuwiki on 30 January 2023.

The single one edit by the range last week that probably was not made by SO was spam, so everything considered I believe that reblocking the range for another year would be a net positive (compare 119.63.138.0/24, which is likewise almost exclusively used by SO). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:57, 12 August 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]

20 August 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Contribs show same topic areas (Islamic extremism, flags, Albania, historical Islamic figures, intersection between various religions, football, favorite articles such as [388][389]; for all this cf. the archives), focus on transliteration (cf. archives), and the giveaway uploaded to cuwiki on 30 January 2023.

There's just a little more which I'm willing to share with admins or clerks per e-mail, but I think this should be enough for CU. CU please note that AlbaniaeDominus, MawlidistMan, and Marmidukay are the most recent SheryOfficial accounts, despite being (wrongly) tagged as Dolyn. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: re AlbaniaeDominus, MawlidistMan, and Marmidukay being SheryOfficial, mainly there's the giveaway on cuwiki, which I've sent you an e-mail about with the relevant diffs.
Apart from that, there is the clear overlap in topic areas and editing style. Some examples (cf. the archives for past interest in these subjects):
Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:41, 20 August 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]

15 September 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Proforma. I blocked the master a while ago when I stumbled across them socking as Passenger88 - those two accounts are unambiguously  Confirmed. While investigating another case, I came across the Syrikist, which looked suspicious. It's not confirmed, but it's using the same VPN/proxy service, the account creation date is a match for when this master was blocked, and it's got a substantial editing overlap with the master and the Passenger88 sock. They are also guilty of a substantial amount of intentional LOUTSOCKing, which would be enough to merit a block without connection to the master. Girth Summit (blether) 20:08, 15 September 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]

18 September 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

See editor interaction with the master and the previous socks. Like Syrikist (archived), OrasmusBLQ was created after Ayubist was blocked. OsamusBLQ is requesting the same move as Syrikist made. (I think Girth Summit forgot to include Wybxis in the last one, which is why I have included that already CU-blocked account here.) SilverLocust 💬 23:44, 18 September 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]

05 October 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same focus. See Editor Interaction with the other accounts (plus Teklobus according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial). This five day old account is also apparently familiar with the concept of block evasion and (less correctly) sockpuppets [1]. SilverLocust 💬 14:29, 5 October 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]
  • They're on all the same ranges as previous Ayubist socks, and editing all the same articles. There is some overlap with the SheryOfficial case, but I remain to be convinced that the two are connected (they might well be, but I'm personally not confident enough to merge them). Blocking, requesting lock. Girth Summit (blether) 18:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, scrap that - I've just gone and checked a lot of the recent accounts again, and the more I look the more I am persuaded that these socks are just another bunch of SheryOfficial socks. I'll request a merge from that case. Girth Summit (blether) 18:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

28 September 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account immediately starts moving pages, focused on moving page to correct transliteration under WP:MOSAR like the recent socks in the case. Same topics/articles as socks in the case. Bestagon ⬡ 13:28, 28 September 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]

30 October 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Has the thing uploaded to cuwiki on 30 January 2023 (cf. archive) and noted in several cases since. Disruptive, transliteration-related page moves and similar editing interests (Albanian topics, historical Islamic figures, Islamism), on which cf. the archives. Many other small beans that I don't need to list here make me very sure it's them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:53, 30 October 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]

11 November 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Has the thing uploaded to cuwiki on 30 January 2023 (cf. archive) and noted in several cases since. Disruptive, transliteration-related page moves and similar editing interests (historical Islamic figures, Islamism, Islamic festivals), on which cf. the archives. Some other small beans that I don't need to list here make me very sure it's them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:05, 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]

25 November 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Both accounts have all the usual, as in the previous reports here and here. I'm very sure it's them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:42, 25 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]

10 December 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

In Bangladesh genocide, sock User:Ayubist changed "Bengali Hindus" to "Bengalis" in the lead, [420], Wiki.arfazhxss does the same [421] and engages in edit wars over it. Ultimately reverts the article back to this which is simply a restoration of this revision by User:AlbaniaeDominus, another sock of this master. (compare the two edits [422])

Wiki.arfazhxss account was created very recently (November 25) but editing with a great deal of familiarity with editing tools. Most of his edits are automated and he has quickly reached over 500 edits, needless to say to expedite extended confirmed status to edit these articles. Moreover, here, Wiki.arfazhxss mentions that Aman.kumar.goel "has consistently removed/ reverted/ deleted my contributions" although the two have never interacted with each other before. Rather Ayubist and his other socks have had a number of interactions with Aman.kumar.goel with opposing POVs.

Based on behavioral evidence, looks very much like a duck. There could be sleeper accounts as well. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:29, 10 December 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]

22 December 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Both accounts have all the usual, as in the reports of 30 Oct and 11 Nov (thing uploaded to cuwiki on 30 Jan 2023; disruptive page moves; similar editing interests such as historical Islamic figures, intersectional religious topics; some more small beans). I'm very sure it's them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:26, 22 December 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 to each other and I think the technical and behavioral evidence is  Confirmed to previous socks/master. No others jumping out.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. and locks requested shortly. Izno (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


27 December 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Both accounts have disruptive page moves and typical topic areas (historical Islamic figures, Islamic extremism, intersectional religious topics).

For Shi'anAliIbnAbiTalib there's also some small beans that make me reasonably sure it's them. If so, then compare [423][424] with [425][426] and [427][428]: they seem to want to throw of suspicion by opposing or undoing their own disruptive page moves. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • Yes I am indeed SheryOfficial (Shi'anAliibnAbiTalib) but by God, I am not this Quarkkz12 disruptive editor. Also I'm now just off from Wikipedia, I hopefully won't be creating more accounts. Bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shi'anAliIbnAbiTalib (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

05 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

restoring edit with identical edit summary vs edit from last block Moxy- 22:32, 5 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]

Kermanshehi: [429] vs [430][431][432]. Imitates edit summaries of other users (e.g. [433][434] are based on my edit summaries, such as [435][436][437][438]), a common SheryOfficial (SO) strategy (cf. the archives on this). [439] was in retaliation of [440], but both accusations here happen to be right: Dido789 was a Loverofediting sock and the IP is used heavily by SO (cf. the archive and the /22 range editing SO favorites such al-Albani and Albanian topics ([441] vs [442]; [443]), on which further see the archives). There are some more small beans that make me 100% certain it's them.

Quarkkz12 has been reported previously (archive) but was closed for lack of behavioral evidence. However, this account matches in topic area and disruptive moves, and has the thing uploaded to cuwiki on 30 January 2023 (cf. archive). Compare now also [444] with [445][446][447]: it's pretty clear that the Quarkkz12 shenanigans [448][449][450] serve to make other SO accounts look like they're fighting vandalism. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:08, 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]
  •  In progress - I've already blocked these two. Kermanshehi is pretty much confirmed, and Quarkkz12 is looking pretty likely, and behaviour is enough to satisfy me. There are a couple of other accounts active on the same articles which are looking rather suspicious, having a poke around. Girth Summit (blether) 15:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing this out for now. There is some potentially improper use of multiple accounts going on at some of the same articles these accounts have edited, but I can't tie it back to SheryOfficial - will deal with that separately. Girth Summit (blether) 15:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account created three days after the latest sock of SheryOfficial was blocked [451]. Brand new user and their second edit is requesting a technical move for an article that was moved 4 years ago...? [452] Not very sneaky. They probably got inspiration from me, as I did it to a few articles that SheryOfficial's sock EbnShareq moved (eg [453] [454]). Like the previous socks, they also have an interest in IRI and Pakistan related stuff. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:33, 19 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]

20 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

[455] vs [456], which clearly is related to [457] vs [458][459], and more broadly to the long-standing edit war between SheryOfficial and Loverofediting at Mu'awiya I ([460][461][462][463][464][465][466][467]; on 205.164.154.107 being SherryOfficial see also the IP reported here;here;here).

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:36, 20 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]

23 January 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account created a day after the latest SheryOfficial sock was blocked. Their editing journey is not even remotely similar to that of a new user. On day 2, they were already using Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (which SheryOfficial recently learned to do after seeing me do it [468]) to revert a move that was made a year ago at Portuguese conquest of Hormuz, which SheryOfficial's sock conveniently edited recently [469]. See also the EIA with one of the recent socks [470] HistoryofIran (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More proof, guess this is the smoking gun, more or less same edit, trying to format citations [471] [472], how does a "new" user know how that works? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also have a Persian name (well, a Persian transliteration of an Arabic name to be more precise) "Sheikh Hossein", something which SheryOfficial has done before (eg the latest sock), despite being Pakistani, which SheikhHossein seems to be as well based on edits in niche areas like these [473]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not even trying to deny it, would appreciate if a rollback was made on their edits too. They've been socking about twice every month since 2019. In this month alone, this is the fifth time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 25 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]

07 February 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account has all the usual, as in the reports of 30 Oct, 11 Nov, and 22 Dec (thing uploaded to cuwiki on 30 Jan 2023; disruptive page moves; similar editing interests such as historical Islamic figures, intersectional religious topics; some more small beans). I'm very sure it's them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Duck. I came here to report exactly the same sock. PepperBeast (talk)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

12 February 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I know it's them. I will e-mail the evidence to any admin upon request. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

They created their user account two days after the latest SheryOfficial sock was blocked. And they don't edit like a new user at all (eg knowing of this rule [474]) and edit in Pakistan politics related articles, so that's already two huge similarities with SheryOfficial. After they're blocked, could all their edits please get rolled back? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 February 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I know it's them. I will e-mail the evidence to any admin upon request. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Doesn't even try to edit like a new user, edits in same topics as SheryOfficial, no doubt a sock. Can all their edits please get rolled back as well? --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I myself have reverted my own edits. I admit to being a sockpuppet. I am done using Wikipedia for now, just somehow want to restore my original account, SheryOfficial, but it is globally locked. Can someone please help me with how to get that account unblocked? I am more than ready now to obey the Wiki policy of not editing for more than 6 months, or even a year or so on. Rizvi Bullet (talk) 09:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've been socking non-stop for 4 years, think it's going to be that easy? In this January alone you socked 5 times. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out on their talk, there is the wp:standard offer. I would in fact very much encourage them to stop socking, wait for an appropriate amount of time (two or more years would probably work better), and write a convincing unban request at that time.
@Rizvi Bullet: don't worry about your original account, you can just use WP:UTRS. The main thing is to really stay away from WP and do other stuff in your life. If you could manage to successfully participate in another online collaborative project, evidence of that would probably be hugely helpful in any future unban request. That, and time, a lot of time spent really and completely away from WP. Every new sock account both resets the timer and prolongs the total amount of time that will be needed before trust can be regained. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(two or more years would probably work better)
I don't mind 2 years or more, but I think 6-12 months is too generous for a person who has been socking for 4 years (EDIT: 5 years, damn) (they also recently made some pro-IRI pov pushing, bit concerning). Anyhow, that's just my opinion, ultimately up to the community. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: +1. Maliner (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

25 March 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I was asked to file this privately to avoid retaliation. Apparently are editing in the same style and context as Rizvi Bullet. I am not familiar with this sockmaster so I didn't want to block out of hand. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This was Barelvi Shooter's second edit "this was added without any consensus" what does a new user know of what is consensus and what isn't? And interestingly enough that was done in the same article (Template:Barelvi) that SheryOfficial's previous sock Rizvi Bullet made the same edit [475]. So much for the WP:Standard Offer supported by SheryOfficial [476] --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Barelvi Shooter created their account on 13 March 2024, very close to 29 February 2024, when the latest sock was blocked. Barelvi Shooter has made lots of edits in a very short time, just like SheryOfficial does. They have also immediately started moving articles [477] [478] [479] [480], just like SheryOfficial often does (eg [481]). Also notice their EIA with just the latest sock only [482]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the unneeded CU request. I'm fairly sure it's them, but not 100%. I have some small beans evidence I'm willing to e-mail to any admin or clerk. Alternatively, we could also wait this one out for a bit. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also just made a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (which SheryOfficial also frequently does), as any new user would typically do, and with a comment of that of a veteran [483]. Can all their edits get rollbacked again please? HistoryofIran (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed behavorial evidence to PhilKnight. By now I'm 100% sure it's them. WP:MASSROLLBACK would be nice if someone can do it. Thanks everyone, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Behavioural evidence needs evaluation Much like I said on IRC earlier. Primefac (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was asked to look at this case on my user talk and received an email of behavioral evidence kept private for WP:BEANS reasons. The checkuser evidence shows geolocation spread over the same country with no real overlap. So it could be them, it's technically possible, but the technical evidence is not enough for a block. The behavioral evidence is pretty good, and I am inclined to block. I will leave this open in case someone else wants to give their thoughts. PhilKnight (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28 March 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Range just came off a one-year block and is already being used by SheryOfficial: [484] vs [485]; [486] vs [487].

Recommend another one-year block, just like the other 119.x range heavily used by them. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:01, 28 March 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]

19 April 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Exactly as per e.g. here. I'm 100% sure it's them. I will e-mail further evidence to any admin or clerk upon request.

This one amassed 831 edits, so if someone could do mass rollback, that would be nice. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need for evidence now per [489]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Doesn't edit like a new user, constantly moves articles, makes a lot of edits in a short time, edits in the same topics. Yup, this is no doubt SheryOfficial. Please rollback all their edits after their block. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

14 May 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Range has made ~100 edits since 12 April 2024, with the edit before that dating from 14 January 2018 and the one before that to 20 September 2016. The user who started editing from the range on 12 April 2024 clearly is very experienced. Topic areas (historical Islamic figures, focus on intersectional religious topics) match and they edit some of SheryOfficial's favorite pages. Despite all that, current behavioral evidence perhaps does not suffice to block. This report is intended to flag the range for future reference, and may be summarily closed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck last two sentences: behavioral is now beyond doubt [490][491][492]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:45, 5 June 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]

05 June 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Usual focus on spelling- and transliteration-related page moves; same subject areas; some small beans I'm willing to discuss with clerks and admins per e-mail; use of the IP range in the 14 May case above [493][494][495]. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yup, this is them alright, third edit already using WP:RM/TR [496], which SheryOfficial loves to use. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

08 June 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Page moves, subject area, some beans which make me 100% sure it's them (e-mail me to discuss these if needed). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: behaviorally the account LolingTom also clearly is SheryOfficial, per the usual page moves, subject areas and beans I'm willing to discuss via e-mail with any admin or clerk. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:20, 8 June 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 June 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

All the usual: focus on page moves, subject areas, and beans I'm willing to discuss with any clerk or admin via e-mail. I'm 100% certain it's them. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yup, this is SheryOfficial, eg [497] [498]. Please rollback all their edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They just admitted to socking [499]. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

20 June 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Another new user (created 19 hours after ProudRafidi's block) at WP:RM/TR who is requesting the restoration of a reverted move by blocked sock CanadianFolks (and is already familiar with reverting sockpuppetry after having this account for 3 days). Same subject interests. SilverLocust 💬 00:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Found the smoking gun, reverted Apaugasma to restore the edit of a sock of SheryOfficial [500] [501], please rollback all their edits. EDIT: Here's another one [502] [503]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

15 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same old, same old. This time not masquerading as an Iranian (their favourite) or an Albanian, but a Turkish person [504]. A "Turkish" person which apparently knows most about Arabic related stuff than anything else [505] [506] [507] [508]. Those diffs also show that they are familiar with Wiki templates, just like a "new" user would.

Like SheryOfficial, they also love to use WP:RM/TR right off the get-go, just like any "new" user would [509]

Would highly appreciate if you could rollback all their edits, I'm very confident this is SheryOfficial. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: After this SPI they immediately starting reverting themselves and claimed that they were "retiring" [510]. Though they are probably making another account as usual. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: DeobandiBlade is deffo a sock of SheryOfficial. This is their first edit, as a "new" user already familiar with templates related to Arabic exactly like SheryOfficial in their past socks and Kürkisk [511]. SheryOfficial has also shown interest in Deobandi related articles (eg [512] [513]). Not to mention their account was created just a day after this SPI. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

@Primefac: I opened an SPI case concerning user Kürkisk. I just noticed this one. Can you take a look? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
 Confirmed via Leithiani. I found the following accounts that are either name- or IP- related which I'd file as  Possible but might need further evaluation (not opposed to blocking them as well):
There are also a couple of others that were a little too far out of what I'd want to even say as possible. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand "new" user created three days ago already know the names of multiple policies such as WP:RS, MOS:REPEATLINK. Already knows how templates and formatting work [514] [515]. Edits in the same articles as SheryOfficial's socks, eg Deobandi movement and Taqlid.

And they restored the edit [516] of SheryOfficial's sock IP [517] HistoryofIran (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though they have admitted to socking, can we please still do a checkuser? They likely have other socks lying around. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

EMAMFan has stated: OMG, how do you even get to know my accounts? I'm only editing Deobandi-related articles (which you never edit) and still catching me out of nowhere. [518] 2402:8100:24CC:387A:7D65:EAC1:3178:E76C (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

26 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Gelocates to Pakistan (where SheryOfficial is from). Reverted me to restore SheryOfficial's IP socks edit [519]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yes, they do use this range. They were active on the /24 just two months ago: please see the archive on 14 May 2024. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Range looks pretty much to have only been used by them since April 2024. Could an admin please give it another range block? HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Blocked per prev. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

[520][521]; some other small beans make it very clear it's them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

They also admitted it here (Google Translate); Thanks for translating. Sherry official speaking, leave me alone please. Can we please do a Checkuser just in case they have other socks lying around? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're still editing, and they likely have more socks lying around. Can someone please block the user and make a Checkuser? HistoryofIran (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

DK was created on July 5, while K a day later. DK's username refers to Ismail Kemal, and they have a picture of Kemal on their userpage as well. DK opened an RM on Ismail Kemal (to move the article from the then name Ismail Qemali to the current Ismail Kemal) and the only one who !voted there was K. They both stayed imactive for a few days, and after the RM was closed, K put a "Retired" tag on their own userpage, as if the only reason the account was created was to !vote on the RM opened by DK. It is clear that these two accounts are breaching the rules. They either have been used by the same person, or by two friends in off-wiki coordination. IMO, a CU can make things clearer. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After another editor accused DK and K of socking, K removed the comment from the talk page [522], and later that day put the "Retired" tag on their own userpage. Both accounts have the same topic interests and use Visual Editor. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They use similar expressions. DK "as they highlight", DK "as highlighted", K "as I have highlighted". K "your claim that... is completely baseless", DK "your claim is baseless that". Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The following para was merged in from a duplicate section, see Special:Diff/1235040654 for original. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two accounts not more than 12 days old doing the exactly same kind of edits and supporting eachother in proposals just like at [[523]], one a turkish account and the other a badly google translated name of "Kemal's lover". After pointing out that i suspect Sockpuppetry the second user wrote "nvm i quit this discussion" [[524]], and then "retired" on his User Page [[525]] after just 10 days. Also i suspect the main account DashnorKemalit to have other sock accounts and possibly evading Ban since knowing a lot of users that an 12days old account editor is expected to know as it is shown in this edit (asking for support for the same discussion that was "supported" by the second suspected account Kürkisk [[526]] RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Clerk assistance requested: please merge this into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial, as the two accounts are  Possible (same IP different UA) but Kurkisk is  Confirmed to Shery. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Geolocates to Pakistan, where SheryOfficial is from. Very similar edit and exact same edit summary [527] [528]. Here the IP restored [529] a edit by SheryOfficial [530]. IP also makes use Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests [531] just like SheryOfficial has done countless times. Just generally doesnt edit like a new user at all. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Added DashnorKemalit as well per RoyalHeritageAlb's comment (thanks), since they did work together with SheryOfficial's sock [532]. And they don't remotely edit like a new user. One of their first edits was a move request [533] and they kinda restored SheryOfficial's edit [534], compare it to my previous revert [535]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 2: Added Ibn Chishti, this one is obvious. Reverted me to restore SheryOfficial's edit while accusing me of being a sock of some random user [536]. Also not the first time SheryOfficial has reverted others and randomly accused them of being a sock [537]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 3: Also added 182.191.149.163 and 37.111.149.63 just so we can keep track of the IPs they use. More or less restored SheryOfficials edit here [538] [539], compare [540]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DashnorKemalit just openly admitted to being a sock of SheryOfficial [541]. Can we please immediately indef them and do a CheckUser? They no doubt have other socks lying around as per usual. A rollback of all their edits would also be appreciated. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

User:DashnorKemalit also did the same type of edits that this IP user has done before. [[542]] this as well shows Pakistan as location. So adding this up to other clues that Kürkisk and DashnorKemalit are "helping" eachother i suspect this confirms that DashnorKemalit is a sock as well.RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone explained to this guy why sock puppetry is so detrimental to WP and consensus? Kowal2701 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not familiar with the history but might it be more constructive to give them a route back to using their main account and comprehensively explain sock puppetry and it’s impacts? This constant create and block must be wasting a lot of editors’ time and he doesn’t seem to understand Kowal2701 (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, another user and I initially assumed this was a routine case of sockpuppetry involving a newcomer. However, after three days, it became evident that this incident involved a seasoned sockpuppeteer. After It was observed that the primary account associated with this user is six years old, suggesting a profound understanding of sockpuppetry rules, albeit with apparent disregard for Wikipedia's community impact. The user has justified the use of sock accounts citing a permanent block on their original account, claiming intent to contribute positively. Nevertheless, recent activity, such as using one account to propose and another to endorse the same proposal a week ago, raises concerns about compliance with Wikipedia guidelines.
[[543]] RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don’t think this user understands. If you look at User:SheryOfficial talk page and their unblock request, it is clear that the institution of guidelines and policies are not intuitive to them, and the lack of mention of their previous impact on the community indicates that this is not something that has been appreciated or thought deeply about. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They think that as long as they hold good and benign motivations, then they can’t do anything wrong, and rules against what they’re doing don’t take them personally into account Kowal2701 (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that this is habitual, and if given back their main account, the user may be tempted when in a dispute to engage in sock puppetry again. The harmful impact would need to be made very clear Kowal2701 (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a pretty recent conversation between me and SheryOfficial's sock (can't remember which account, they create so many), it seems to be a mix of addiction + not understanding the impact and timewasting almost 6 years of socking have. They expect that they can just get unblocked almost immediately despite creating hundreds of socks for almost 6 years. They also think that they have good motivations, but they certainly don't show it in many of their edits, showing signs of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing/pov pushing, such as the recent mess they caused at Ismail Qemali through abusing the Move Request system with two of their socks [544]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it’s worth a go discussing this with him on the premise of trying to understand his pov, establish relations and explain the importance of rules and guidelines, with a route to get his main account back. Establishing relations is the key bit Kowal2701 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP can be very combative and cold, and given his history it’s likely he’s not community minded here and not incentivised to prioritise community Kowal2701 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ik admins would never normally get personal but this seems like an extreme case Kowal2701 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did somewhat try that in that convo. But they seem to have ignored it, since they just repeated themselves here "....I tried to request an unblock attempt few months ago but my accounts just keep getting globally locked, that's why i gotta sock again and again." HistoryofIran (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, SheryOfficial seems to be well aware of WP:Standard Offer, but they couldn't even wait for that, being deceptive as usual "Thanks for replying! After going through WP:Standard Offer, I am ready to cooperate and wait for more than six months, a year, two or perhaps more. Again, cheers for replying!" HistoryofIran (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If he is just gonna make us look like fools then yeah, status quo is fine. If it is an addiction then the standard offer probably shouldn’t apply, and we should start small with small rewards and regular communication Kowal2701 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, a small reward after a month could be that he gets his main account but with content blocks and blocked from making RMs and RfCs Kowal2701 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imo I think that is too generous for a person who has been socking non-stop for almost 6 years. I don't think we should make concessions just because SheryOfficial is unable to stop. If they are indeed addicted, then I hope the best for them and that they get out of it. But they need to do that through outside help, not us making concessions. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s understandable, regardless further communication is needed imo. Punishment is only effective and constructive if the person understands what they did and why they’re being punished Kowal2701 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as i want to sympathise with the editor,reminding me my first blocks when i was a newcomer and had no idea with what Sockpuppetry was, this user used one of his accounts to "approve" the proposal of his another account just a week ago. Even trying to larp as an Albanian and pinging editors who had edit warred with some of the voters on that proposal just because they voted against his opinion. Attempting canvassing and trying to rig the voting process. After learning that this user has 6 years of Wikipedia experience i cant think of any way how this user might contribute in any good intentions in any way. So even if we dont count the Sockpuppetry his edits are not meant to be NPOV and cause more problems that have to be cleaned afterwards than benefits.RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we made clear the impact his behaviour has on WP and the community, including wasting admins' time, maybe he'd stop or engage properly and correct his behaviour. Or he might just not have any respect for other people, which seems likely Kowal2701 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not up to me but i wouldn't mind if admins gave this user one last chance if he agrees to follow the rules. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or he might just not have any respect for other people, which seems likely
Yup, not so long ago they even harrassed me by sabotaging two articles I was expanding, (ironically) accusing me of being a sock [545] [546]. There is also this edit summary I ain't gonna stop socking cry more b*tch Regardless of what they claim, they are and will always remain WP:NOTHERE imo. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

More or less same changes at the lede [547] as one of SheryOfficial's socks [548] HistoryofIran (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand they admitted to it [549]. Can we make a checkuser just be to safe? HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 27 July 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]
 Confirmed to General Asif Janjua (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), going off the "admission" as a reasonable connection to the main. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand new user created today, just a day after the latest sock was blocked. Tried to restore [550] (and apparently knows about WP:COMMON NAME and how to make a move request right off the bat) the name SheryOfficial's sock tried to force some months ago [551] --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand they admitted to it [552][553]. Can we please do a Checkuser regardless? They usually have a sock or two lying around. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:29, 29 July 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]

Oddly enough,  Confirmed to Elsisko (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) but no one else, but behavioural seems to match. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand new user created a few days after the latest SPI. Like SheryOfficial, constantly moving articles right off the bat [554] [555] [556]. One of their first edits they are already aware of the word "dab" [557]. A notable one is the move of Khamaneh to Khaminah, which SheryOfficial also tried back in January [558]

They think they are real smart striking the comment of their own sock [559], as if a new user knows that a thing. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand pretty much admitted to it by trolling [560] [561] HistoryofIran (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would appreciate if a CheckUser could be made just to be sure that they don't have any other socks lying around. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:19, 14 August 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]

21 August 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

119.73.112.0/24: same as last year (archive).

Беарофчечьня and Fieldheid: usual subject areas, disruptive page moves, and some other beans.

37.111.148.0/24: ‎37.111.148.106, ‎37.111.148.151, and 37.111.148.36 are all them (clerks and admins can e-mail me if they want to discuss the beans).

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Masquerading as a Russian now, if it continues at this rate they will get to cosplay all nationalities. Please rollback all their edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it right now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Apaugasma! HistoryofIran (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran and @Apaugasma, I don't understand the speedy mass rollback of User:Беарочечьня edits. It haven't been confirmed and their edits should've been mass reverted when confirmed as a sock by a check user. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Safari Scribe! I'm very familiar with this LTA (see the dozens of reports in the archive), and I'm 100% sure it's them. I'm mainly mass reverting early because waiting longer often means that it is more work, but to some extent also because it is useful for other users (such as you) to be aware of the fact that this is a sock who can be ignored. Is there any disadvantage to reverting early that I didn't think of? If there's any edit you think was useful, please feel free to re-revert. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment on the name Беарофчечьня- not Russian, Chechen. The name in Russian is gobbledygook, but it transliterates to English as "Bear of Chechnya". Tarl N. (discuss) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be safe;
  1. Chechen name in Cyrillic, but vast majority of edits are on Pakistani/Arab topics. SheryOfficial is notorious for masquerading as other nationalities whilst still editing mainly Arab/Pakistani topics (eg [562]).
  2. This was Беарофчечьня's second edit [563], far from that of a new user. What new user knows how to format citations in Sfn?
  3. Like SheryOfficial, they move a lot of articles [564] [565] [566] [567]
  4. Like the other socks of SheryOfficial, they mostly go AWOL after an SPI has been formed.

As for Fieldheid [568], they more or less restored the move of SheryOfficial's sock [569], claiming in their edit summary "Manually reverting undiscussed move made a few months ago", which is blatantly false, and no new user would do this. Hope this is enough, I can find more proof if needed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

I've run a check and there look to be some potentially connected accounts, but nothing that immediately shouts SheryOfficial. I'll see if I can make some time to re-run everything but I wouldn't be opposed to a second opinion from another CU. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04 September 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Duck. Restored edits by previous socks (e.g.: Aqsian313, Abu Imad al-Haydari; Aqsian313, Abu Imad al-Haydari. Same disruptive move/move requests. C F A 💬 00:12, 4 September 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]

22 September 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Restored move by another SheryOfficial sock [570]. Obvious duck. C F A 💬 16:54, 22 September 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]
  •  Confirmed plus:

- blocked for vandalism.

PhilKnight (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22 September 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Restored article created by previous sock [571]. C F A 💬 17:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also KazimiKamal (already blocked for vandalism) if it helps find other accounts. C F A 💬 18:10, 22 September 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]

26 September 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same disruptive moves C F A 💬 21:24, 26 September 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]

01 October 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Account created two days after the latest sock was blocked. Edits in Pakistan-related articles, reverted a SheryOfficial sock from 2021 [572] in an attempt to either troll or make them seem as two different people (this is not the first time SheryOfficial has reverted their own sock). Knows the Wiki abbreviation "para" [573] and MOS:SEEALSO [574], despite being a "new" user. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand the LTA admitted to it [575]. Can we please do a CheckUser just be safe? HistoryofIran (talk) 19:16, 1 October 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]

03 October 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The user TheSyrianSipahi was created (CA) about 15 hours after the last sockpuppet of SheryOfficial was blocked (SPI case and block details). I am unfamiliar with this sockmaster, and this is my first report regarding them, but I instantly became suspicious after seeing their unusual familiarity with Wikipedia's processes. Here is some of the evidence I was able to gather from my first observations:

  • They requested a move on their eighth edit, only a day after their registration; they referred to WP:COMMONNAME, and provided evidence from Brill Publishers, Google Scholar, and Google Ngrams (diff).
  • Sockpuppet Leithiani nominated the page Bektashism and folk religion for speedy deletion (diff); whereas TheSyrianSipahi's very first edit, four hours after their registration, was to remove the entire body of the page (31,306 bytes; diff). A similar massive removal was also attempted by another sockpuppet of SheryOfficial, TatesTopG (14,657 bytes; diff). After the latter, 2402:8100:24CE:A8C0:C950:1466:A851:2445 proceeded to remove the entire body on 2 July 2024 (28,015 bytes; diff); an edit that was only recently reverted by 73.132.234.227, on 23 September 2024 (diff). This last recent revert by the IP, very likely prompted SheryOfficial to return to the page with a new sockpuppet.

Other editors, more familiar with their activity, will probably be able to provide additional evidence. Demetrios1993 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yup, this is them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

06 October 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


  1. Account created two days after the latest SheryOfficial sock was blocked.
  2. Immediately starts editing in the article Bektashi Order that the previous sock of SheryOfficial had targeted.
  3. Is apparently aware of a RFC from 1 year ago [576]
  4. Just doesn't edit like a new user at all. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I concur with HistoryofIran and Primefac. Besides the evidence that has already been presented, in the page Salafi movement, Mawlana Ali made an almost identical change (diff) to the one attempted three days earlier by SheryOfficial's latest sockpuppet, TheSyrianSipahi (diff); the differences are minor when you take everything into account. Furthermore, even though the two aforementioned accounts had about 10 edits each, and is still a little early to be conclusive, their respective timecards betray similar hours of activity; that is, they appear to be active between 7:00–9:00 UTC and 15:00–17:00 UTC (timecard1, timecard2), with the exception of one outlier (the first edit by Mawlana Ali, at 21:26 UTC). Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the timecards of former sockpuppets, and it appears there is a lot more variability in their activity. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

12 October 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same disruptive moves, lots of overlap. C F A 💬 03:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yup, that's them. This time masquerading as a Greek to conceal themselves. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the smoking gun, both moving Abu Jaber Shaykh to a similar name [577] [578]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 October 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same disruptive moves. C F A 💬 13:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yup, that's them. Started being active the day after SheryOfficials latest sock Σουνιτική άμυνα was blocked. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Confirmed. Also, a sleeper:
PhilKnight (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


19 October 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Requested Baba Mondi be moved to the same title in these ([579], [580]) sock moves. C F A 💬 23:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yep, that's SheryOfficial. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

24 October 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same old, same old. User account created a day after the latest sock was blocked, doesn't edit like a new user, knows of a two-year old AFD thread [581], edits in Pakistani-related articles, is also fixated on Muhammad Ali Mirza [582], an article targeted so much by SheryOfficial that I had to put mention it in the article's talk page [583]. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:27, 24 October 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]

04 November 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Hope you don't mind me including an already indeffed user. I thought it be convenient to do it like this, so we have also Mulla Shahzad registered as one of SheryOfficial's sock (would also appreciate if you could check they have other accounts lying around, they usually do shortly after getting blocked), which also makes it easier to show that the range 39.62.204.0/22 is being used by them. Let's get started:

  1. Account created on 22 October, three days after one of SheryOfficial's socks were caught.
  2. They have an Iranian type name, not the first time SheryOfficial has masqueraded as an Iranian (or dozen other nationales for that matter).
  3. As in typical SheryOfficial fasion, Mulla Shahzad does not have the traditional journey of a new user, already knowing of our policies [584]
  4. Quickly moves articles like SheryOfficial [585] [586]

As for the IP:

  1. They geolocate [587] to a similar area as the previous IPs used by SheryOfficial, eg [588] [589] [590]
  2. Right after they had created an article of a obscure figure [591], Mulla Shahzad started editing it, complementing the IPs changes [592] [593]
  3. The IP continued Mulla Shahzads work at Ibn Ḥanbal [594] after the latter was blocked. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I've just added 39.62.0.0/16 too (connected to the previous range), since SheryOfficial has more recently been using this. Although it's a larger range, the vast majority of edits have been reverted [595] (Ctrl + F "reverted"), so would appreciate if this could get some time off. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:30, 4 November 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]

05 November 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Clearly not a new user, yet [596]; knows HistoryofIran is familiar with SheryOfficial (prev diff); account is a sleeper; same topic areas. In addition there's some small beans I'm willing to discuss with any admin or clerk by e-mail. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Well, I'm going to cry if they're the same person, that would mean I've been greatly bamboozled. Now that I've had a look at their edits, Apaugasma is indeed right to be suspicious. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how I can prove I am not Shery? HyperShark244 (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Apaugasma, I am not SheryOffical, I am the one who is trying to expose him. I have been on Wikipedia for a while, and have gotten familiar with its policies and users. I got into an edit conflict with SheryOffical after this, and therefore did some research about them. I was going talk about him to Czello, but based on the historical investigations here i thought HistoryofIran or CFA were better alternatives. After Shery reverted my edit, I have been talking to HistoryofIran here. My account was only set up in May of this year, and I've only been editing for the past couple of weeks. I have been using this site for years, without editing, which is why I am familiar with everybody and the site policies. HyperShark244 (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 November 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


  1. Account created 2 days after the latest sock was blocked.
  2. Immediately starts moving several articles like SheryOfficial.
  3. Doesn't edit like a new user at all.
  4. At Wahhabism, they edited together with the IP [597] that was part of the range I previously reported in the SPI HistoryofIran (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaand the LTA admitted it [598]. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:53, 16 November 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SheryOfficial/Archive&oldid=1258975287"