Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


OfficialPankajPatidar

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

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

03 March 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

OPP/New Baba sock, now quacking in Spanish!. Also the irony of username 'Fiverr92' is not lost...perhaps this is the source after all. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:05, 3 March 2017 (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]

created the corresponding article, with identical content, on the Spanish Wikipedia. MER-C 06:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Venezuela?! That's... interesting. GABgab 15:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked
and regex salted Ryan Hampton. MER-C 04:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing. GABgab 17:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked
for es:Usuario:AldoFX. MER-C 02:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Quack quack, FILA Film Invasion Los Angeles. Yeryry (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2017 (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 March 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Quack quack Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:24, 8 March 2017 (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 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


A bunch of single purpose accounts writing promotion around Tres Watson.
Brilbluterin created a fully formed advert for Watson [1] over a redirect they'd created 2 days earlier.
Karuenmelan created a fully formed advert for The Gadget Guys [2] over a redirect they'd created a day earlier. The Gadget Guys was founded by Watson.
After the article was on Watson was redirected, reverted by Watson, then proded a new SPA Rogercosts appeared to remove the prod and make changes.

Could be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar given a new SPA sock from there made many edits to Canvass for a Cause, another org founded by Watson. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2017 (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]

Some semi-automated observations:
I don't think the distinction between the different masters matters that much; I think we're seeing multiple people working from variants of the same script. What matters is that the spam sees our flamethrowers at the end of the day, via IAR if need be. MER-C 08:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The spam obfuscation is the same as OfficialPankajPatidar (report 19 November 2016 Group 4). MER-C 03:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other behavioral ticks I notice from some of the accounts: Often one of their first few edits will include the creation of a talk page with {{talkpage}}.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] (Most of these examples came from the large list atop the page.) Many/most of the Eggedbursa batch have taken to creating redirects from their User pages to their talk pages in their first few edits and in some cases waking up their talk pages too with {{user talk header}}.[10][11][12][13][14][15] This is almost certainly done to circumvent the redlinks, which I guess they think will trick experienced users. (It doesn't!) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smartse: I'm not sure what you're asking me. Which accounts aren't stale? Are the puppets at HemantDas34 related to the puppets here? You want to inject yet another layer of complexity in the game of which socks belong to which master? From a technical standpoint, there's often at least some connection. However, I don't usually say they are the same unless it's compelling technically and behaviorally. Although sometimes cross-editing is an indication of a behavioral connection, I find frequently it's not. Frankly, there are too many socks from that part of the world.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: Yes sorry for wanting to make it more complicated! I was meaning that the HemantDas34 socks aren't stale but not knowing entirely how CU works, I'm not sure whether or not you would have picked up a link to them automatically, or whether further checks could link them. The more classical spam combined with creating articles is fairly unusual IMO and both HemantDas34 and this group did it. There is other behavioural evidence linking HemantDas and OPP like creating talk pages with only two spaces: e.g. [16] [17]. I'm just concious that we should try to link SPIs together wherever possible, even if we can't be 100% certain whether they are meats or socks. SmartSE (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two additional socks identified on repeat check, both directly linked to Eggedbursa, and are already blocked:

Please note that the edits of these accounts should also be checked. Risker (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Based on behavioral and technical evidence, I merged this case into OfficialPankajPatidar case. I'm tagging all and closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Another new SPA has appeared to "clean up" Tres Watson and to pretend there is no COI. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

My conclusion was that he was the client, hence the lack of mention when filing the initial SPI. He, unlike these socks, IMO is not a shill, he has been open and honest. The speed at which was aware of the Watson article and then editing it is matched by the same on the Gadget Guys article. Seems clear that he was informed that the job was done. Add to the self identifying you mention is self identifying by name elsewhere [18] [19]. It would be very helpful if User:Xyxyboy could tell us how this sock farm came to create those two page. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a google alert, as well as some other Internet monitoring programs mostly for Press Mentions set to many things that interest me, and when the Internet mentions Tres Watson, Canvass for a Cause, or The Gadget Guys I get an email about it. When I see something written about me, I set it to a watchlist so as to ensure accuracy, believe it or not there are people out there that have a negative opinion and have vandalized on Wikipedia before with unsourced allegations of things that although untrue would be very embarrassing so I'm careful to keep close tabs on the accuracy of anything put out online, and quickly at that.Xyxyboy (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xyxyboy Given your concern for what's online I'm letting you know that someone on Wikimedia Commons is using your name [20]. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

That's alarming, I'll have to see what else they have edited.Xyxyboy (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Check completed. Snackanzac (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is very  Likely based on technical evidence and considered confirmed based on behavioural evidence. Account has been blocked. Risker (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: You mentioned the account was blocked, but it is not. Could you clarify whether you intended to make a CheckUser block or whether another admin can act on this? Thanks. ~ Rob13Talk 07:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since Risker is unresponsive, I blocked the accounts. Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

29 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Boxer4215:

  • Made one edit in April 2016, then suddenly became active again within weeks of the blocking of a large group of Brilbluterin socks.
  • Overlap with known sock on AlliedCrowds (which was created by blocked sock Cardpock) where Boxer4215 proceeds to remove a PROD. (diff)
  • AlliedCrowds is closely related to Lars Kroijer, a page created by Boxer4215 in April 2016 (creation) and edited twice by them this month. (1, 2) Lars Kroijer is pretty blatantly promotional. Here, too, Boxer4215 proceeds to remove a PROD. (see '2') The page has, between creation and Boxer's resurfacing, been edited by two known-and-blocked Brilbluterin socks: User:Hrupolata (here, here) and User:Ducalburl21 (one diff among four).

IP 79.122.217.238:

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • @Risker: Could you possibly fill me in on whether this user has been confirmed or not? This user has been blocked indefinitely, but I wanted to ensure it is not a mistake and that we are not losing an uninvolved editor. Garchy (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Okay, this is getting very complicated. It looks like the feedback from some commenters here is on the money, because these accounts sure look like crossovers from OfficialPankajPatidar. They are editing Brilbluterin articles but are more technically related to OfficialPankajPatidar. Please note that Helium Hasrur (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is {[staleIP}} and so blocks should be based on behaviour; no No comment with respect to IP address(es) on the IP address except to say that it is not technically related to either of the sockmasters and is unlikely to be part of the editing ring.

The following are  Likely to be socks of Brilbluterin and are technically related to OfficialPankajPatidar as well.

Risker (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22 March 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I'm actually not sure if this is OPP again or not, or a similarly-minded person, because their one article (of an American-specific company, LiquidHub, is far too questionable for a casual visitor) especially considering every single section highly suggests COI. In any case, a precautionary CU is good. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

The evidence presented has no connection to the master and is thin in any event. I'm tempted to close with no action, but I'll leave that to a clerk for the moment. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more has been done with this report. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Recreation of OfficialPankajPatidar spam.

Clearly a throw away account for a promotional sock farm. Other than token edits elsewhere has only edited about Roman Molino Dunn [25]. Dunn is known as Electropoint. Electropoint has been deleted three times this year [26] as a speedy G5, always Created by a banned or blocked user (User:OfficialPankajPatidar) in violation of ban or block.

Given the size and continuing socking a checkuser may be best to find others. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

  •  Clerk endorsed - To check for sleepers. Thanks, GABgab 13:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Katietalk 21:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Likely based on behavior and some technical data. Note that most of the CU data here is stale, but there's enough for me to block. Katietalk 21:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing, as all accounts listed are blocked. ~ Rob13Talk 03:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Re-creation of deleted articles ([27] [28]) that were started by socks, I believe. Sro23 (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2017 (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]

  • Both  Likely after checking for sleepers. NativeForeigner Talk 22:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Please block the accounts (and delete the pages as per G5, if possible). Thanks, GABgab 23:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralizationsAreBad -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Tagged and closing. GABgab 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09 June 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Been a while since I've seen one but recreation of Electropoint. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:11, 9 June 2017 (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]

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action -  Looks like a duck to me. Unsure if CU is still needed. Thanks, GABgab 20:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked and closed, no CU needed on this one. Awaiting tags. ~ Rob13Talk 20:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


09 June 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Quack. Recreation of Billy Carson. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • concur. I recall the stilted and clumsy phrase "registered member of the European Space Agency and NASA" from the first time around. Also, genuinely new editors don't start by applying obscure templates as their first and second edits[29][30], and creating 5k articles in a single edit (er, paste) [31] as the third. - Bri (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

07 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Recreation of Eshal Fayyaz under different title Eshal (Pakistani actress). Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 18:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This is new. Attempted impersonation of SwisterTwister ??? Also, it's odd that the IP geolocates to Beijing but here they claim to be in Pakistan. Proxy? _ Bri (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Requesting CheckUser: The IP is too stale to block. As for the named account, it does look like username impersonation of SwisterTwister, and a block would be justifiable on that basis alone. In addition to the article recreation, the recent edits to Abro (TV serial) are also similar to edits made by a previous sock (adding links to the recreated page): compare [32] and [33].
    What gives me slight pause, however, is that the command of English of SwisTwis feels weaker than that of previous sockpuppets of OfficialPankajPatidar (which was already weak to begin with). Compare the talk page statement by SwisTwis to previous socks: [34] and [35]. The talk page statement by SwisTwis is less composed than those of the previous sockpuppets and is riddled with spelling errors. Compare also the state of the Eshal Fayyaz article by SwisTwis and by previous socks. This recent iteration has much more broken English than earlier iterations: e.g. "Eshal started he career as a model and was most liked for her face and got many fame on her model" and "She is popular for portraying role of Abro" and "The drama got very hit for drama's different story and was most watched serial". This recent iteration also lists the date of birth as October rather than September.
    The behavior of this new account feels subtly different, but on the other hand, the quality of English of past accounts wasn't that much better. Maybe I'm being too charitable. I'd be interested to see whether CheckUser can shed any light here that would help determine whether this account is related to past socks. Best, Mz7 (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated and, assuming it's a sock, I don’t know who the master is.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Thanks Bbb23. Given the behavioral dissimilarities I noted above, and given the result of the technical investigation, I do not believe this account is related to this master. I have placed a soft block on the SwisTwis account since the username is too similar to that of an established user – the user will be free to create a new account with a different username and continue editing, or request an unblock to file a username change request. Such a new account should not be considered a sock puppet. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


10 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Newly created account, recreated the salted page Sedat Sönmez under a different title [36] (Sedat Sönmez (Businessman)). It was then moved to the original title by VQuakr [37]. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Note overlapping SPI case WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Amirshahat. - Bri (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Blocked and tagged, closing. GABgab 22:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Contributions logs show he started one of the specifically recent OPP articles, and account history shows strongly similar behavior. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC) SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

  •  Clerk endorsed - For sleeper check. Thanks, GABgab 15:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Katietalk 15:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated technically to OPP, and I don't have any other masters in the ranges either. Katietalk 16:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing, since there's nothing left to do here. GABgab 19:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Recreating Electropoint by a very obvious cut and paste , presumably from one of the many versions of those previously deleted. Identical editing pattern to sock master  Velella  Velella Talk   20:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

They were blocked one minute after this was filed. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • Account now blocked. CU not necessary as it was just run two days ago. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Sumpsus reposted Helen Child at H. Child. Note the creation of a redirect prior to page creation in both cases [38] [39]. This technique is also being used by other users that I will post in a moment. SmartSE (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

COIN notified for cleanup, permlink. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Sumpsus is  Likely to this group. There are webhosts involved and it's murky, but there's a UPE ring here. Blocked pending tags. @Berean Hunter: Take a look at the SPI I referenced and see if you agree. Katietalk 15:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eep - missed some, including some sleepers. That happens when you have 20 tabs open. Also confirmed to the group are:
  • These also blocked pending tags. Katietalk 16:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note Thanks for the check Katie. GiveKryptoShiny and Experticka had already been picked up in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati as well. I'm also seeing similarities with the accounts picked up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stoubora, particularly the use of subject names as usernames to upload at commons. Are there any CU who can check commons users e.g. C:Special:Contributions/Sam_Slater? SmartSE (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Recreated the page Flickstree, which from what I can tell as a non-admin, was created in original form by Yasirali442 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), a CU confirmed sock of this farm. Requesting CU to check for sleepers. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

  •  Clerk endorsed - Please compare to previous socks and check for sleepers. Thanks, GABgab 15:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Katietalk 20:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't confirm it to the last group of OPP socks I ran, plus there's another VPN involved, but there are no sleepers.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Katietalk 20:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked based on behavior. Tagged as suspected, no objection to a clerk retagging as proven. closing. —SpacemanSpiff 23:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Electropoint (Roman Molino Dunn) is back. Electropoint has been deleted may time as a G5 speedy deletion. Recreations by OPP socks. It's now back at Electropoint (music producer), typical of paid sock farms at a new title to bypass salt. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the subject is judged to be not notable then can the word "Electropoint" be salted as any part of a title? Shearonink (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


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

05 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

It's been a while but see Draft:Ave Fenix Pictures CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:07, 5 January 2018 (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]

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • User warned of COI, closing. GABgab 00:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

  • Juniorcardenas30 recreated article by blocked sock here
  • NARAS rather vociferously protesting deletion of article. [42] NeilN talk to me 20:02, 30 January 2018 (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 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Chinanike101 was registered in August 2016 a day after this case was filled and recreated C. R. Venkatesh under C. R Venkatesh. The article was previously created by user Sibhuja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dictayo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GSS (talk|c|em) 14:21, 15 August 2018 (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]

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - These articles are not very similar, but the promotional intent is clear. Please check for connections to other UPE accounts/sleepers. Thanks, GABgab 20:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Another recreaction of Electropoint, this one at Roman Molino Dunn again jus like a previous sock. See also their talk page, "Happy to re-start editors task ...its been year's". [43] duffbeerforme (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This might be an admission of prior accounts, they say they are "re-starting" and "it's been years". Bri.public (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • This case is being reviewed by 1997kB as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Looks same user on behavior evaluation. Case have extensive sleeper history, so please check if there're more account relating to Subsidefest. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This case is  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action — Please indefinitely block the listed account on behaviour evaluation. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10 December 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Tripped 871 and reported to WP:EF/FP. The match is over a few passing mentions of the same person (ninth alternative in the filter's regex), which caused me to initially think this was innocent. However, a Google search for that person's name and "orion experience" returns only five results, none of them meaningful, which means that this is at best overstated participation, and at worst hoaxing. Comparing the writing style in Special:AbuseLog/31474107 to past edits and filter hits, there's the same excessive boldface, blank lines between bullet points, and use of curly quotes that we see in Special:AbuseLog/18223083. This would be a lot of effort (+15kB) for just a few passing mentions of someone, but my understanding is that that's not entirely inconsistent with this master's MO, and they've shown in the past that they like writing long list-y sections of music articles. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I came across this EFFP. Imagined CU data would be stale; I was going to drop a note to @Bbb23 and KrakatoaKatie as most recent admins dealing with this SPI in archives, but even that was quite some time ago. Forgot to get around to leaving that note, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention against logged data. I know it's been a few years so there probably won't be a way to confirm this, but it would be helpful to know if they're at least in the same general vicinity, before deciding what to do here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, CU isn't going to be of any help here. I checked the logs for a bunch of confirmed socks in the archives and didn't see anything. Nothing in cuwiki either. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I feel like a bit of an idiot on one aspect of this: I made a typo in my Google search; the subject of the filter hit has indeed verifiably worked with this band. However, the aforementioned writing similarities, and the long history of trying to spam that person's names across various articles (including at least some that they have actually been involved with), makes me think that this is more-likely-than-not OPP or one of the related sockfarms documented in the archives. But I don't think I can get to a high enough confidence level to justify a block on that basis. A straightforward block or only-warning for promotional edits and possible UPE may be the easier way to handle this. @Discospinster: You've already reverted this user's edits once as promotional. Thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I did revert one edit that was excessively promotional but I don't see any relationship between this editor and the one they are accused of being a sockpuppet of. Unless I'm missing something? ... discospinster talk 01:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is actionable at this time. Since the person in question did work with the band, it doesn't seem especially suspicious to mention them on the band's article. The writing style similarities aren't unique enough to be confident that this is the same person, and while Kelbrindle's edits are promotional, it's entirely possible that they're someone else with a COI or just an enthusiastic fan. It seems noteworthy that their edits are completely unsourced, which is something I'd expect from a newbie moreso than a long-term UPE. Kelbrindle has already been warned about COI, so I'm closing this case without further action. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar/Archive&oldid=1142566697"