Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slowking4/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Slowking4

Slowking4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 September 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The IP <-> user is quite obvious a case of WP:DUCK per changing unblock request for IP, changing a comment from the IP, and remark by user about a warning left to 'my user talkpage' (belonging to the IP (subsequently quickly reverted [1].

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive edits by user:Slowking4.

Since the user seems to be on a mission showing that IPs and new users are mistreated (see diff as an example), it may be wise to see if there are sleepers or socks (pretending to be new users). Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • information Administrator note CU won't connect an account to an IP. However, I've blocked the IP for a week on behavioral grounds. I don't see much evidence that suggests other accounts are being abused here, so I'll call it here for now. Relist if necessary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I listed here, since the editor is commenting on both IPs and 'new users' being not able to do things (see e.g. quoted diff). The current quest with the IP is visible, but the quest may also have included the creation of a new account, and showing the same wrongdoings by edit filters and bots. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote: "i grant you death spiral is hyperbole; how about slow motion meltdown? Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?: instead we mourn Pending Changes, and celebrate Abuse filter. it was a nice growth curve, then it ended." - that quote does include 'new accounts' .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean, if they're here to prove a point then that's one thing. But Slowking4 isn't a new account; it's been around since January. If that was a new account and they were being intentionally disruptive, then I would support a check. It's a little too early for WP:BEANS so I'll send you an email explaining this a bit more. I guess I can leave this open, though, to see if any of the other clerks have any thoughts. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna shut this down for now also looking to decline a check. But one single IP & one user holds me steady at declining. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
04 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Mainly WP:DUCK, IPs already blocked. Putting them here for the record, I am sure there are more to follow. Not pointing to evidence per WP:BEANS, except for self confession diff, the rest is self-explanatory (or contact me by mail). Dirk Beetstra T C 19:29, 4 May 2014 (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 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Typical behaviour (`I will not explain on-wiki). I've blocked the editor and tagged, but blocking sleepers or, where possible, underlying IPs would be good. Pinging User:Drmies here as he looked into earlier socks. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:50, 22 May 2016 (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 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

(reporting here per suggestion of User:Bbb23) - evidence is purely behavioral (which again I am not going to disclose here, see WP:BEANS); editing from the regular ranges, making the regular type of edits. Socks are blocked, edits reverted and created pages deleted. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in previous requests sleepers were found. I suspect also that there may be socks that have been missed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:52, 25 July 2016 (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]

@Beetstra: If you want a CU to look for missing accounts, you need to change the status of the case to "CU" and explain the basis for your suspicion. Otherwise, this may be closed out of hand as both accounts are already blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing per previous comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Usernames too close for comfort. Signature edits (adding the common templates, lowercase typing). I have nuked Hoyabeetya's contributions, and will revert the rest where possible. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added Fair-beeter - username and also the template edits. Did not tag/block/cleanup after this one, but the edits seem clear. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:36, 28 November 2016 (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]

  • Hoyabeetya is  Confirmed, and Fair-beeter is  Likely. Blocked Fair-beeter and tagged both accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

24 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I've had this person on my radar since diff, which his latest socks typically do. It now is the usual. Somewhat incivil towards editors who disagree with him and the writing style, e.g. diff, diff vs. diff. See also diff. Editor has a focus for articles on persons, paintings, etc. Edits on Commons, meta, wikidata. Tends to participate in 'contests' (guess what: 45 points), edit-a-thons

The IP is a recent IP that ran into the abuse filter to find IPs with typical editors in the range.

If proven, all their material needs to be nuked/reverted. We cannot leave the material and acknowledge their edits.

Ping @Drmies: - they have been looking at this at some point and we discussed this. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Beetstra, I think this is better left to an expert; Bbb23 has dealt with this editor too. I see a few things under the Marthacustis account that bother me but I'm not that qualified here--and I haven't kept records that I can compare with. But that the duck quacks is pretty clear. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Thanks, I've nuked/reverted as much as possible per WP:DENY. Guess it is waiting now for new socks. It is hard to kick a habit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Maybe I am getting paranoid. Two new editors by Special:AbuseFilter/643, focussing on addition of images ([2][3][4]), which is something that Slowking4 socks tend to do. Especially the sequence addition by MarthaCurtis (sock above), revert by me, and readdition by Richardfbyrd (same image, this time without caption). Richardfbyrd was created shortly after I removed most of MarthaCurtis' edits were reverted/removed, which must have pinged them a lot.

Pennsy is less obvious, though seems to have the same MO.

Pinging User:Bbb23. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:52, 25 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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

26 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Continues to edit in same way. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 and Ks0stmIT: can we have a more permanent solution .. every daymore, and if I don't detect ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:02, 26 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]

13 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Typical edits like [5], [6]. Please check for old accounts (it seems long that they have been active, there may have been accounts that were thrown away). Dirk Beetstra T C 12:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the IP, is in the regular range and seems to have been used very recently performing some suspect edit attempts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour starts to quack. Unfortunately ACTRIAL is conflicting, but I think ACTRIAL is more important. —Dirk Beetstra T C 10:26, 15 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]

Edits (also of possible missed accounts) need to be rigorously flushed down the drain per WP:DENY (previous socks were editing to participate in competitions). Ping user:Bbb23 (has been dealing with this sock before, there is other evidence that I am not disclosing on-wiki). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starts to quack loud. I am considering to pull the trigger. Still would need to see if there have been any throwaway accounts over the last couple of months (i.e., since May). User:Ks0stm, you have looked into this as well seen the last request, would you be able to have a look during User:Bbb23's time of low activity? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action Definitely  Looks like a duck to me, please indef. Master doesn't seem to have a history of creating sleepers, so no check is necessary. Sro23 (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a history of throw-away accounts, I'd prefer to be sure that there are no accounts that we have missed. I also have concerns about the accounts that have not edited at all and that are being welcomed - they all have 'similar' userpages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sro23: I can't block without clear evidence. Could you demonstrate some of the similarities with diffs (one from previous socks, one from the current, etc.)? ~ Rob13Talk 12:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BU Rob13: not on-wiki, I will try to mail you later today. It is clear from the tupe of edits and his style of writing on talkpages. See also edit filters 639 and 643. —Dirk Beetstra T C 14:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on that, I am 99% sure, just think it is still better that there is IP evidence. —Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I received evidence off-wiki (will share with any admin upon request) for WP:BEANS reasons. The evidence was substantial but not really duck territory, so I ran a check. Based on the check, this is  Likely. Blocked. ~ Rob13Talk 17:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Obvious sock. Blocked, tagged and contributions wiped where possible per WP:DENY. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 6 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]

22 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


WP:DUCK, will not disclose more on-wiki. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 22 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]

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik 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.

07 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Starting from the IP, it is in the common range of IPs used by Slowking4. The IP attempts two edits (abuselog entry, abuselog entry, which are subsequently performed by Simoneseqouin. The 'usual evidence' for this sockmaster clearly makes this a Slowking4 sock (I again will not disclose that on-wiki). Fun fact: this attempted IP edit from user:158.59.127.103 (in another range used by this user) is to Talk:Simone Segouin; both article and talkpage edited by Slowking4.

Note: Draft:Betsy Levy Paluck and Draft:Cristina Jiménez Moreta were created twice, first by User:Teasoa, now by User:Simonesegouin. The first editor has been confirmed as a sock of Slowking4.

Simonesegouin was created on November 16, 2017 - while Rapydapy was still editing: Rapydapy's last edit was on November 29, 2017 (blocked on 22 of that month), Simonesegouin started editing on the 20th of December. That makes Simonesegouin a confirmed sleeper - the account was created in anticipation of the current account being blocked. Please check for sleepers, and nuke everything they have done on en.wikipedia - their edits are their trophies. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:19, 7 February 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]

  • I'll do so. I was trying to CU on my tablet and it crashed trying to do so. Courcelles (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The registered accounts are blocked and tagged, the IP is stale. Closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


behavioural, editor blocked. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:07, 9 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]

30 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The usual evidence, see history. And as usual, not going to disclose duck-behaviour here.

Note: this is the first time there are three accounts editing at the same time. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:09, 30 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]

The three accounts are very  Likely and Gordonflack is  Technically indistinguishable from Warren5th (talk · contribs · count).  Blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Brianfairfax is a 99.9% duck, the other two a bit less. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


the usual edits, not disclosing for WP:BEANS. Previous socks were blocked yesterday, so today a new editor. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:44, 31 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]

 Technically indistinguishable to Sherwoodhall and others:

 Possible

 Behavioural evidence needs evaluation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: Burkejurk and Marthadandridge seem to fit the pattern, though burkejurk may be early. Lortonsorton also fits part of the same pattern of Burkejurk. Need to check more.
note that I have seen strange IP edits as well. Please check underlying IPs for edits. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk, There has been some anon editing under different IPs but I've checked across the range and don't see any other accounts. I'll leave blocking here up to you and others. These accounts are from same/similar IPs as accounts in the archive.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Marthadandridge has remarks for copyrights problems, e.g. diff. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that Lortonsorton behaviorally fits Slowking4. Tagging and closing. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


behaviour too close for comfort. Please check for sleepers. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:39, 8 September 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]

 Confirmed + Henryshirley (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I'm not sure how Henryshirley has escaped detection for so long. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07 October 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


As usual. Please check for sleepers etc. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:05, 7 October 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]

  •  Additional information needed - Beetstra, could you assist this new CU by setting out your reasoning in more detail. (I am yet to receive my cuwiki access too.) I see a number of behavioural indicators in the prior accounts that do not match this one. Feel free to email (WP:BEANS). AGK ■ 08:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC) AGK ■ 08:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Possible. AGK ■ 20:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on a combination of behavior and my own findings, I've blocked and tagged the account. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


25 October 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


the usual (type of edits, userpage, username, cross-wiki competition). See also User:Marthacustis and Custis Trail. Please check for sleepers and copyright/attribution concerns. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:26, 25 October 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]

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. No other accounts seen. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


28 October 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Direct link to Nelliecustis above, usual material. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:55, 28 October 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]

@Bbb23: .. you state above 'no other accounts' - is the net wide enough that you cast? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Possible. Behavioral evidence needs evaluation. Mkdw talk 19:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mkdw: This one is behaviourally for 99.5% sure a sock. What weneed are sleepers, or other accounts that have been used. This sock was active while we've done 3 to 5 other SPI cases and was not seen. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make it 100%. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I couldn't see any immediate sleepers. A lot of traffic on that range. Mkdw talk 05:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Mkdw: that is a pity. OK, I'll cleanup and continue hunting. Thanks. (I have a not to add and then this can be closed). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: No problem. Sorry I could not be of more help. Mkdw talk 17:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04 November 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Bit less sure than normal, but too close for comfort. Please check for sleepers. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Looking at it a bit more, similarity jumps to high numbers comparing with the edits of the last sock. Duck-level 99%. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:37, 4 November 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]

  • Note that it appears that the sockmaster is travelling at the moment, m:GLAMTLV2018/Welcome. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they were at a wiki[p|m]edia event, then there isn't much point checking for sleepers. The collisions will too numerous. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Guerillero: I would expect that the chances of finding sleepers (i.e. editors that are at the same times using the same ranges in their home country and at the event) would exponentially increase (there must be a sleeper active now, it is too silent ..). However, to check that this user is the sock is not needed for this duck. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, socks prepared during the event wouldbe of interest as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

28 November 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


typical focus and edits. Behavioral still a bit thin, but >95% sure. Please try to find sleepers, this was one of them on last call. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Dirk Beetstra T C 04:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Seems pretty ducky to me. This account is using images uploaded by Slowking on Commons. Also, note the name is clearly a corruption of Driftblim, a Pokemon name - another Slowking hallmark. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pi.1415926535: the Pokemon-link has escaped to me completely (actually, the character is Drifblim). I guess that raises it to significantly over 99%. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, this editor was created just before (or hence maybe: while?) the editor was abroad (see previous sock), and started editing when the editor may just have returned (just in case that helps in pin-pointing CU data). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Drifblim is  Confirmed to Psyduck3. No sleepers seen.  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


typical edits and behaviour, please check for sleepers etc. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

The user Kennyalley has been spamming Wikidata infoboxes all over the project despite warnings. IWI (chat) 12:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Red X Unrelated. This only works if he's traveling abroad.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The accused sock puppet, through behavioral evidence and other similarities, has been identified and indefinitely blocked and tagged as a sock puppet of Slowking4. Please refer to this diff for detailed evidence and information. This SPI can be closed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 January 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

probably just for the record that this IP is currently linked to Slowking4. I do have a suspected sock that was active this week, but I will leave it to you CUs to decide whether you feel like fishing for them (my suspicion is too weak to post here - even if new socks are long due). Dirk Beetstra T C 03:40, 29 January 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]

  • One edit to their Talk page a few days ago. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


99.5% duck (as usual, will not reveal telltale data). I note that it has been a very long time since the previous sock, it may be worth looking whether there are used accounts that were not detected. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:40, 12 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]

 Confirmed plus Beetybleedy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked and tagged
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


WP:DUCK (and hence blocked), but this NEEDS a search for other sleepers (so that is why I did not see new accounts coming up). Dirk Beetstra T C 05:47, 18 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]


18 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


very similar in edits to above socks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Dirk Beetstra T C 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad and Berean Hunter: is there anything more thorough we can do to see any alternative accounts, Amanda did not see any other accounts while this one was active at the same time. PeavyEavy has been active since about 9 cases ago and always escaped notice, and this one is active for 6 cases. This plainly suggests that there are about 5 (if not way more) other accounts active at this moment. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:20, 19 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]

Dirk, I can find about twenty different IPv4 ranges that have been used in about eight months time and that may not be the limit of those...IPv6 is also being used in disparate ranges. Socks/sleepers are being found in ranges used by the socks that you are presenting and checkusers are not missing them in the ranges where they appear. Multiple UAs are also being used. Going through all previous ranges for each sock reported is not practicable.

Muleshoemoment is  Confirmed

 Possible

@Berean Hunter: thank you, I was afraid of that - I am aware that they have access to multiple IP ranges. The checkusers may want to consider to use special:AbuseFilter/639 if there are IP-edits on the ranges that are clearly by the socks.

  • Hortonwhoyou - quite likely based on edits only
  • Wereth11 - username likely (he is not a big fan of User:Werieth ...). No edits to go by.
  • Blackblight - only 4 edits, 2 of them typical. Thin evidence, but quite possible/rather likely.
  • Nelliejellie - absolutely on mulitple parts of evidence
  • YoungGodfather1979 - not enough evidence, questionable based on cross-wiki edits (not impossible).
  • Nicolasmakadeli - not enough to go by, I would question this one.
  • ElCaudilloDeCuscatlan - not enough to go by, I would question this one.
  • ElCriticoDeLaNostalgia - not enough to go by, I would question this one.

Now, The last 4 appear to be certainly socks of each other, which makes the sum (seen what they have done) a bit more likely to be a sock of Slowking4. The last 4 however have hardly/not edited en.wikipedia, maybe should be checked again in a next round if they continue editing.

However, this again misses the one that I have seen on the 20th.

I'll let the work for now by the clerks, I will assist in wiping anything that needs wiping. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, Montysuncle is  Confirmed with  No sleepers immediately visible. Using a special proxy with no other socks visible.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Berean Hunter: .. thanks. They will show up then, I guess. The hunt is more important ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: WE're not done yet ...

Saxa-soxa (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (behavioural pretty sure)

and the saga continues. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not enough evidence against the last four accounts at this point in time. Case closed. Sro23 (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05 June 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


signature edits. Please nuke all his work as far as possible as per earlier. Please check for other accounts. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:23, 5 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]

 Likely. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19 August 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Typical signature edits like infoboxes, women articles, translations, and images. (see previous cases - I am not suggesting beans). The long periods of inactivity (which does not exist) suggests that there are numerous missed accounts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 19 August 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]

@Bbb23: I (hopefully temporarily) gave up my bit. Can someone else do the honour? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: I didn't realize. I hope it's temporary, too. In fact, you could ask for it back now and then you can g5 the pages. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: ArbCom is in the last phases of this farce ... lets sit that out. Things may still be screwed up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Common MO. Please check for other accounts that have been used inbetween. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Dirk Beetstra T C 06:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

 Confirmed

 Blocked and tagged
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12 September 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Usual MO, this time including participation in an edit-a-thon. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added Ryan Pikachu. Signature edits available, and the username. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do note here, that there are also edits which contradict signature edits, which is unusual. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 15 September 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]

Dirk, I have a slew of editors all on the same IP address. I have seen Slowking4 using two major operating systems before but Jgross17 isn't using either. The account that is using what I expect to see from the newest batch is Brock-brac (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) which is  Possible as it is a UA match to several in the group of socks above. This history is suggestive that would tie these all together though. Most of the other accounts on that IP are using variants of the OS that Jgross17 is using. None match Jgross17. I updated the page for Slowking4 at the checkuser wiki after running the check for the group above so that may help other checkusers looking at this. I see Brock-brac attending other meetups and not quite confident that this is Slowking4. I have placed these results in the cu wiki for other checkusers to consider. Perhaps Bbb23 has seen Slowking4 use the OS/UA that Jgross17 is using.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter and Bbb23: Brock-bracis a duck (and I need help to clean it up).
Jgross17 is suggestive based on their own edits. I see three of their signs in the few edits they did. Then they both edit a draft edited by another sock, quite close to together. And how would Jgross17 know about this draft? All too coincidental. I am pinging Pi.1415926535 here, who blocked the editor on commons (where the sock is blocked as well). Also pinging Jasper Deng who is looking at the socks on wikidata. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking deeper into the situation, Jgross17 is unlikely to be a sock but more suggestive of someone who was instructed by Slowking4 during the edit-a-thon they were both attending. Likely other editors that were recently welcomed by Brock-brac are similarly 'related' (unfortunately, they are meatpuppets of Slowking4). @Bbb23 and Berean Hunter: going through the edits it is clear that brock-brac is a sock of Slowking4, although they started off with a different subject-class than usual, it is easy to identify >5 of their signature treats (and note that Brock is a Pokemon character). Can you please check/confirm their signature treats? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a suspect to this case ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Pikachu is Red X Unrelated and quite some distance from Slowking4. Technically possible is the cu results for Brock-brac so the rest should be based on behavioral analysis...i.e. it is your call.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02 October 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Recreated Andrea Barnet which was deleted per G5 as the original account was a sock. Requesting CU to confirm and find any sleepers. Kb03 (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does show some of the behaviour that the sock has, I would say ' Possible' based on that behaviour but not enough for being a duck. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

 Confirmed along with Washmem (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10 October 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Both in the >80% duck range (I am more sure about Blueplate7 and then we see the usernames). Dirk Beetstra T C 06:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have more of those usernames, but not enough edits. Slewuriah66, Bergcavil1? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

 Confirmed

 Likely

 Possible

14 October 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Behavioural, >95% duck. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

15 October 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Pro-forma, 100% ducks. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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


21 October 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Spotted by Dragonfly6-7 based on image uploads, behavior is similar to previous socks. ST47 (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

 Confirmed to the set of sockpuppets immediately above. No additional accounts immediately visible, user tends to move between different public wi-fi locations.  Blocked and tagged ST47 (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23 October 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

duck. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:34, 23 October 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]

  • All three  Confirmed with no additional accounts matching the behavior visible to checkuser. ST47 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09 November 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

 Confirmed

 Blocked and tagged
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03 December 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

~99% sure. Please check for other accounts. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:02, 3 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]

28 February 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:24, 28 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]

 Confirmed,  Blocked and tagged

 Possible as they are technical matches but  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation


23 March 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Elizabeth MacDonald was expanded from a redirect by Degasvenus (talk · contribs) of Slowking's #28 February 2020 cohort. The only factor preventing it being G5 pruned back to a redir is that it's been substantially expanded by GOULDERAMA (talk · contribs) on 5 Mar, after the previous CU check took place. GOULDERAMA has made no other edits. Cabayi (talk) 13:50, 23 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]

  • Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention Please confirm & check for sleepers. Cabayi (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated to Slowking4 but this is a COI editor and I have left a warning on their talk page.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

 Confirmed

 Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Seems like a throw-away new account fitting quantity-over-quality behavior patterns of before. Renata (talk) 02:07, 23 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]

Behavioral rather likely. —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All  Blocked and tagged. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05 June 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Essiepolman registered a few weeks ago, following Riteevens (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) block and has now recreated nearly a dozen of the same articles.

And several more Praxidicae (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

This case is being reviewed by RoySmith as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case (including admin actions against suspected socks) without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • @Callanecc: Blocking Essiepolman79 now, to prevent further disruption, but a CU would be useful to authoritatively confirm vs. Essiepolman79 and/or see what other sleepers emerge. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Inconclusive. Essiepolman79 is using a proxy service locating to a different continent from previously checked accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll leave this as suspected and start figuring out which articles created by Essiepolman79 are G5-able. Is there some neat tool to figure that out? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, Special:Nuke is a good tool to see what pages they've created and gives you a link to delete the ones you select with one click. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m unsure, I would give this about 50 chance, telltale edits are not very strong (though not absent) and articles created are more correct (less ****** mistakes). Timing seems slightly off as well. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra,Legitimate users don't connect via a proxy and create 14 new articles in 15 minutes on their first full day of editing. I'm willing to entertain that we might have identified the wrong master, but there's no way this is a legitimate new user. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, yeah, I see that this is suspect, but this may indeed be the wrong master. I suggest to ask BH or another Slowking4 specialist (see CU wiki), just in case they did change their MO and try to stay under the radar. They do hit my filter quite hard. Dirk Beetstra T C 21:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, I do not have access to the CU wiki. But, what I'll do is I'll re-open this so you can have time to make whatever other investigations you think would be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, I’m not a CU, but I know there is extensive info there. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra, RoySmith, and Berean Hunter: I don't think this Slowking4 but I could be wrong. I've pinged Berean to have a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Red X Unrelated to Slowking4. Not a technical match to any of his devices. They are editing on the Danish wiki which isn't something SK is known for. Also, this person has been using the same static IP to edit since Nov. 15, 2018 and I'm not sure how it was ascertained that this was a proxy. AFAICT, It is a normal telecom company for that country and not a proxy service and I don't see any indications that it is a proxy from the tool currently. Maybe I'm missing something. The person has edited as an IP for a long time and then created an account. Sometimes they are using a phone that they aren't logged into while using a laptop/desktop logged in. The logged out edits look innocuous. There is another account that was created on that IP but it hasn't made any edits and using a different device (may be a family member). That IP is not currently blocked on any project except this one because of the autoblock and that IP has never been blocked before on en.wiki.
Ivanvector, Callanecc and ST47, do you know of any indicators that this IP is a proxy? Maybe I've missed something. If it isn't one then it is feasible that this person got their experience editing as an IP and not necessarily someone's sock.
Slowking4 has been known to recreate articles by this banned user so it wouldn't have surprised me for that one to recreate SK4's articles but they are associated more with the Dutch wiki rather than the Danish. I'm just mentioning this here to let others know that this has been considered.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, see the above. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berean Hunter: I think you're right. I saw multiple accounts and devices connecting to one static IP over a period of time and guessed it was an open proxy rather than a public computer. Checking again today I think I was just mistaken, or confused this with a different check. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did some editing analysis. It seems like of the articles that Essiepolman79 and Riteevens both created have in common that they are about handballers. But there are some structural dissimilarities [7]-[8], [9]-[10], [11]-[12] and [13]-[14] that I didn't notice before. That indicates that Essiepolman79 and Riteevens may not be the same person. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JJE that the editing analysis does not seem to match Slowking4, e.g. their talkpage use is too different, as is their edit-summary use. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self that I have to undelete these pages which I deleted thinking they were of a sock if folks conclude that Essiepolman79 isn't anyone's sock. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarizing what we've got so far, there's strong evidence, both technical and behavioral, that this is not Slowking4. The proxy thing is somewhat of a red herring; my original deciion to block was made before any suggestion of proxying was made. The description from Berean Hunter that this person was (I hope I'm not reading more into their words than they intended) doing the same kind of editing as an IP prior to the account being created leads me to believe that I simply over-reacted with my initial block.
I'd appreciate a second opinion, but at this point, I'm thinking unblock them, ask Jo-Jo to undo their mass delete, and close this as a false alarm. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just gone ahead and unblocked the user since it appears no one here believes they are Slowking4 and they've been asking to edit again. Jo-Jo Eumerus please undo your deletions now. Sro23 (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's now done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In summary, I originally blocked Essiepolman79, on the assumption that their high rate of article creation as a brand new user was indicative of disruptive behavior. A CU then erroneously identified the IP they were using as a proxy, which reinforced this assumption, leading to a mass G5 of the articles they created. At this point, we have a reasonable explanation for their editing and all that's been undone. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19 June 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

 Confirmed,  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21 June 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

 Confirmed

 Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing left to do, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, edits should be cleaned up/nuked. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, You mean revert every edit all of the socks made? Hmmm, is there some automated process to do that? I'll reopen this for the time being. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, no, that needs to be done manually. One has to check for each edit what to do or whether material is {{G5}}-able. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, Ugh, that looks like a crazy amount of busy-work. I'll leave this for somebody else who is more into that kind of stuff. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, I thought that I took care of most of it from 14:28 - 14:56, June 21, 2020. Look at my deletion log. WP:BMB is exercised on many socks and this is one of them. Significant contribs from other editors includes referenced prose or adding references in significant amounts. Adding cats, short descriptions and minor edits do not count when considering speedy G5 criteria. Sometimes Special:NUKE comes in handy. Also, using mass rollback on their contribs is permissible.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, yes, it is. But blocked means blocked, it doesn’t mean ‘thank you for your edits, looking forward to your next sock’s work’. Sorry. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith and Berean Hunter: material like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rossana_Campo&action=history should also be reverted. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, OK, thanks. I've cleaned up at the G5 level before, but didn't think we went as far as reverting individual edits. Or do we just do that on LTA cases? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, oh yes, we do revert. Depends maybe on the case how rigorous we are in that. Seen past (and rather recent issues) like weak attribution, mistakes here it is better to cleanup. (WP:BEANS applies - I will not be more elaborate). Dirk Beetstra T C 19:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm re-closing this. @RoySmith: As long as the socks don't add vandalism/copyright/blp vios I wouldn't worry about cleaning up after socks in your clerking duty. That's asking way too much. Beetstra or any other good faith editor may cleanup/nuke a sock's contributions, but if clerks are now expected to check and revert every single edit made in block evasion, then I'm quitting. Look at just how backlogged we are on a normal day. Sro23 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sro23, Works for me :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sro23, I am not suggesting that you cleanup (there will be others that can help), but I think that material should be cleaned up before a case is fully closed. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. I repeat, look at just how backlogged we are on a normal day. We are not keeping cases open until every single edit by every single sock has been checked and reverted. That's ridiculous. If all the necessary paperwork's been filed, everyone blocked and tagged, then the SPI can be closed. If you want to cleanup, then be my guest, but were done here. Sro23 (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

  • Report only. There is enough to connect these accounts both through CU and behavior. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The typical signature edits and use of username. I can email further details, will not disclose on-wiki.

Please check for throwaway accounts and sleepers, we know that that happens regularly. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

  • They all came back  Unlikely, but after looking at a technical explanation of why this data would show at is at CU wiki, along with the behavior listed there also, I'm beyond convinced for Sdillonripley. JudeMilhon was a little harder to behaviorally check out, but I am convinced by Special:AbuseLog/27804451. Given the cross between behavioral information on CU wiki along with the technical explanation being merged, I'll make the blocks directly. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beetstra: Do you want me to mass rollback all edits? I forgot about that delete/cleanup. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AmandaNP, I started on that as well, but help would be appreciated, there are a quite a number of edits out there. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I'll finish it with a script, don't worry about manually doing it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AmandaNP, sorry, saw this just now. I have gone through page creations and image uploads, all have been deleted. Please revert the rest. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19 November 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

17 February 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


signature edits per LTA, history, filter hits. Please check for sleepers and other socks. Dirk Beetstra T C 21:21, 17 February 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]

07 April 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User creates the whole day new articles which all had been previously deleted by CSD G5 (banned blocked User:Slowking4). Hard to believe in coincidence here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Hi all, I'm taking part in the 2021 WikiGap Challenge, which has a list of suggested articles, from which I recreated those pages: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiGap_Challenge/List. I was unaware of SlowKing4 until I encountered Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelsa Cardoso, which I have refrained from recreating due to a continued lack of notability (in my personal opinion). I must admit I didn't know the other articles had been deleted before – I'd neglected to check the logs, especially since I presumed a degree of curation. I hope my translations are of adequate quality to stand, though I acknowledge they're far from my best work. The contest ends today, so I'll probably take a break anyway, though I might go back and clean up some of those articles.
  • With the push from the contest incentives, I'm afraid my insomnia (and odd work schedule) has given me very irregular hours. I am US-based, if you would believe it. I made this account when I was in middle school and left it largely dormant for years, for the most part only performing opportunistic copyedits. This year I became more active in the community, such as in the IRC help channel (#wikipedia-en-help), and picked up editing as more of an active hobby.--Anon423 (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what's going on with User:Anon685. I have no control of that account. (At least consciously. Who knows, maybe it's a Jekyll and Hyde situation.) Does it share an IP address with mine? FWIW, I mildly regret my younger self's slightly suspicious username – if I'd created my account today, I would have done so with the username NonstandardDeviation, as I am on the rest of the Internet. (I just realized account renaming is possible.)--Anon423 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • This case is being reviewed by Blablubbs 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 – With this many recreations ([15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]) in such a short timespan, it's indeed hard to believe that there isn't something concerning going on here. CU, please consider the possibility of compromise as well – the account was essentially dormant for a long time and timecard looks like the operator switched continents at some point (granted, irregular working hours are a possibility too). Blablubbs|talk 18:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Unlikely: it is not beyond the realm of possibility, but for the most part, the technical features don't seem to match what we've seen from Slowking4 before. I didn't find any evidence of any account compromise in the last 90 days. In the course of my check, I found the following account, which is  Confirmed to Anon423:
    Anon685 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Additionally, I found the following account, which is  Confirmed to Sethwars from the archive:
    Berlesloe (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • I've  Blocked and tagged Berlesloe. I'm personally hesitant to take action against Anon423 because they seem to have a relatively longstanding account that predates even Slowking4, but I will defer this decision to someone more familiar with this sockmaster's behavior. Mz7 (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, thanks Mz7. For what it's worth, I'm not particularly concerned with the alt account; it has been kept out of projectspace, and while there is overlap on three pages, I'd hardly call that a serious violation. @Anon423: Could you please comment on what led you to recreate this many Slowking4 articles in rapid succession? I really do struggle to believe in coincidence here. Blablubbs|talk 13:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Anon423, thanks for replying. I might be missing something, but I can't find the names in that list, and it doesn't look like there were any recent removals. Could you point me to where they're listed? Also, would you mind giving me your IRC nick? I'm probably one of the 4 or 5 most active helpers in #wikipedia-en-help, and I don't think I've ever consciously come across you. Blablubbs|talk 13:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad, the actual link is on the WikiGap main page, not the challenge page. My IRC nickname is NonStdDev. As an aside, I hope it's appropriate for me to reply here rather than the 'other user' section above. I believe this to be the less confusing option.--Anon423 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, Anon423, thanks. I'm okay with you commenting here, although that's not the preferred way to do it. However, Mz7's {{confirmed}} result means that you share more than just an IP with Anon685: You're likely also editing from the same device(s) with plausible timing patterns, though Mz7 will be able to say more about that than me. And the usernames are certainly indicative as well. Blablubbs|talk 13:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just learned that's my sister's account. I presume she saw my account name and decided to use a similar username. I don't exactly track her, but I presume she also is somewhat an insomniac.--Anon423 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, that's plausible enough for me, and there isn't any serious WP:SOCK violation going on with those two accounts anyway. The list explanation is plausible as well, though I do wonder how the articles ended up being ordered that way. Closing with no action taken. Blablubbs|talk 14:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21 August 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I guess we are doing the BEANS thing here so I'll be vague: same subject matter interest and pattern of editing as the master, similar interaction style on talk pages, similar username patterns, filter hits for Emailmope, obvious behavioural connections between the 3 accounts listed here. Requesting CU for other accounts given the history. More detailed evidence available on request. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 13:33, 21 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]

  • Spicy sent some additional evidence to me off-wiki and I think it's very likely that this is Slowking4.  Clerk endorsed for comparison to the CU log and a sleeper check. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed:
  • Hartsseeks is  Possible at best.
  • The above are all on Slowking4 ranges.
  •  Confirmed Emailmope, Ursusvenandi, Stowjanna, Slowking4
Though something seems suspicious beyond the results given, I can't comment to it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, AmandaNP. Additional CU links:
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed accounts  Blocked and tagged. Spicy and Blablubbs, how certain are you about Hartsseeks after these results? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked the tags – my understanding is that group 1 isn't confirmed to Slowking directly, just on common ranges. Re: Hartsseeks, I'm leaning "block", but would appreciate a 2O on that one; I believe Spicy has sent the evidence to you. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, evidence received. I'm currently deleting the confirmed socks' pages per WP:G5 and WP:G8 where possible. Having a closer look at the evidence afterwards. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, Spicy and Blablubbs. The behavioral evidence is convincing beyond doubt.  Blocked and tagged, closing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

29 September 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This editor today created three articles previously created by a Slowking4 sockpuppet: Tarah Murrey, Kiesha Leggs, Jack Viertel were all deleted in 2017 by Beetstra under "Mass deletion of pages added by Marthacustis - sockpuppetry". The block of Marthacustis links to the Slowking4 SPI. Schazjmd (talk) 00:07, 29 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]

This case is being reviewed by Spicy 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.

  •  Blocked and tagged and  No sleepers immediately visible.
  • I note proxy use. Additional measures taken ~TNT (she/they • talk) 03:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02 November 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


See common editing patterns and behaviour documented before. Please check for sleepers and abandoned accounts. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:06, 2 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]

This case is being reviewed by Spicy 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.

  •  Clerk endorsed - many aspects of the behaviour are similar to previous socks (can provide more details privately). Please compare to the archive and check for sleepers. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed to some of the recent confirmed socks in the archives, and also to a much older sock from the cuwiki notes. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also found Bogytroy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki); they're an exact match to Sloesmemos on technical data, but I don't see any editing overlap, so I'm going to call them  Likely  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged. I'm on mobile, and my fingers are too fat to go through and see if anything should be G5d, so I'll leave this on checked. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, material needs to be reverted or G5d. Bad attribution, crappy translations, bad referencing and non-NFCC-compliance is not strange here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like G5s have been dealt with, the remaining articles that I checked had non-trivial edits from other users. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23 November 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Typical target of edits (see edit history including deleted edits on created articles), typical language used in edits. Note the link with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel. Note: Leetotherear is likely stale, but he popped up in going through old edits and this and this is a rather clear signature. Please G5 everything where possible. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles without few contributions by other editors have been deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 25 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]

  •  Clerk endorsed - Adamswheel is not stale, and their behaviour is very similar to other recently blocked sockpuppets (I gather we're not giving specifics here per BEANS, but I can elaborate if necessary). Please compare against the archive and check for sleepers. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spicy: I am indeed rather silent, socks tend to pop out rather easily though. I expanded the LTA a little. I have earlier understood that there is more information on the checkuser-wiki regarding this, so that should also show the link obviously. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamswheel is  Confirmed using the cuwiki notes for reference. Leetotherear is  Stale  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: the two diffs above for Leetotherear make it sure enough, as well as his focus. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Leetotherear is likely them, but I do not think blocking an account that has not edited in nearly three years is necessary to prevent ongoing disruption. (This does not prevent anyone else from blocking if they are convinced by the behavioural evidence and feel it is worthwhile). Closing. Spicy (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

28 November 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


A new incarnation out of the Slowking4 / Sander.v.Ginkel duo. This is likely Slowking4 (I give it 99%), but in the odd chance it is not please check against (and move this to) Sander.v.Ginkel's SPI. I am very sure it is Slowking4 due to one of their 'new' treats, I will email that on request for your records. Please G5 this stuff and see whether there are any obvious sleepers or other unidentified accounts. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While we are here: added Seamyopens. Appeared in my watchlist and upon going through edits I found a couple of signature edits (article focus, language, typical behaviour in edits). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Oceanbach. They don't have any enwiki edits, but based on some off-wiki communication, they might be another sock, based on their activity on simple-en-wiki. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 28 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]

  • Givetusks and Oceanbach are  Confirmed to each other based on current data, and also to Slowking4 based on some historical notes in cuwiki. Seamyopens is also  Confirmed to Slowking4 based on notes, but in a different way, so it's possible we're dealing with two different farms here. There's also activity on simple, so asking for glock. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30 November 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

duck-sock, lease check for sleepers etc. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

behavioral, for the record. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:00, 30 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]

  •  Clerk note: Moving to what appears to have been the intended sockmaster. Noting that the tag on the sock appears to be incorrect (should be blocked or proven, not confirmed), but I'll hold off on changing that since it may well wind up being confirmed. (I don't have time at the moment to clerk the substantive side of this, just doing some procedural tidying.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, copy paste mistake in creating the case. Correct, this is the intended place, thanks for moving. And I was not aware of the 'proven' tag which is currently maybe more correct (obvious duck). Dirk Beetstra T C 07:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. Hope I didn't come off as too nitpicky. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Likely on the technical data alone, and  Confirmed with the history and behavioral clues.  No sleepers immediately visible -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05 December 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The usual, in this case a 99.5% duck. Note that there is another editor who has a striking overlap in editing with this sock (even on articles freshly created by Seephope like Yulia Gaufler (better: [24])) - maybe Кориоланыч or Sander.v.Ginkel?
Please G5 or revert all additions as usual. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added Khanbawdy, rating this 98% sock (though I see some unusual behaviour - am I confusing with Sander.v.Ginkel?). Also here, please revert and G5 and check for sleepers or other accounts I may have missed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, comparing Seephope and Khanbawdy I rate both 99.5%. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for Seephora there is a strange sequence on November 10, 2021: Khanbawdy is editing Mark Neumann here from 20:13 till 20:22, then welcomes an editor with 0 edits anywhere at 20:28, and VB7-ccyPEf tNfPKD4yaWf R does their very first edit ever at 22:16 (note that VB7-ccyPEf tNfPKD4yaWf R was registered at 20:13, 10 November 2021). Khanbawdy did welcome a large number of new editors (list, not unusual behaviour for Slowking4), quite some just before their first edit (e.g. Rguadagni on November 14, welcomed an hour after account creation, and less than an hour before their first ever edit). (Note, the October group all comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Smithsonian_AWHI/Meetup/Wikipedia_Edit-a-Thon:_Women_Innovators_in_Aviation_and_Spaceflight, where Khanbawdy is as well, and which again links him back to Slowking4). It's a duck now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:23, 7 December 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]

  •  Endorsed by a checkuser - RoySmith, you've looked at a few of these socks recently. Based on the CU data, I'd say that Seephope and Khanbawdy are  Possible, leaning  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely), to each other and to previous socks. Is the behaviour a match in your view? Note also Simschuck, which looks a lot like Khanbawdy. Girth Summit (blether) 20:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one thing I notice is if you look at the timecards for Khanbawdy and a bunch of recent Slowking socks, Khanbawdy really sticks out as not belonging. And they do kind of look like Sander.v.Ginkel. I don't know how much weight you want to put on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That timecard analysis tool is a new one for me - very cool. I see what you mean. I didn't evaluate against Sander.v.Ginkel, just against the proposed master and their recent socks. If you're familiar with the cases, and confident, please do the needful; otherwise I'll re-evaluate, taking SvG into account when I have time. Girth Summit (blether) 22:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I just went down this rabbit hole for a while, and don't have any real good answers. It's certainly possible Seephope and Khanbawdy are Slowking, but it's not certain. However, @Beetstra presents some compelling evidence above, so I'm just going to block them both as suspected and move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I have some help to revert and G5 here? Dirk Beetstra T C 03:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: do I read between your lines that these socks are on a different-from-usual location, and hence that those accounts that were welcomed by the socks may be new editors that may be other people that were mentored (which the pattern somewhat suggests)? A similar question can be asked for the overlapping account for the first. (And that may explain the difference in timecard as well). Dirk Beetstra T C 04:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra I'm not sure how much I can answer here without running afoul of either WP:BEANS or WP:CUPRIVACY, but, yes, there is something in the technical data regarding these two which doesn't quite fit the pattern I've seen before. The timecards is part of that, but I consider timecard data only a broad hint; I've seen many cases where it is clearly at odds with other, more authoritative, data. The bottom line is I'm convinced these are not new users, but I'm not entirely convinced that they're slowking, which is why I tagged them as suspected. My apologies for being so evasive in answering your question. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: for one of them the edits boil 100% down to SK, and the other is just too similar. SK does move sometimes, seems like the case here. I understand that checkuser is not magic, and we have limitations to discuss. — Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested TheSandDoctor Talk 05:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17 December 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User recreates pages previously created by Slowking4 (and often Sander.v Ginkel as well), e.g. Hanna Kapko or Adelaide Deloeuvre. These pages use the same simple structure, and the same sometimes obscure sources like Todor66, with source archive dates from before they started editing. The editor had never edited any Afd (or other behind the scenes pages) but barges into completely unrelated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Zatlyn, where they start attacking me (no previous interactions at all as far as I remember) in a rather extreme way if they haven´t met me before. Slowking4 and Sander.v.Ginkel both can´t stand me though. The combination of article topic interest and sudden very personal and unprovoked attack (with knowledge about my past which seems unusual for a 2020 account with a few hundred edits), is very suspicious. Fram (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Tidekazan to this based on behavior. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 18 December 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]

  •  Clerk endorsed - behaviourally, this looks like a clear match to Slowking4 (would rather not give details publicly per WP:BEANS, but can elaborate if necessary). Please CU to confirm and check for sleepers. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, Tidekazan looks like them too. Spicy (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Tidekazan also seems rather duck-like to me. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUCK, please G5 and revert all. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked all four, but there's still a LOT of G5/G8 work to be done. I've done close to 20, but considerably more needs to be done. Please don't archive until that's done thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went through all four accounts' page creations and deleted everything that seemed G5-eligible. Pages with substantial contributions by others were left. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks all, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some further cleanup, probably been more rigorous than others. Seems we are done here for now. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This user Timonspins is the same person as SportsOlympic (the previous sock), I'm 100% sure. The biggest challenge that I have is proving it because his behaviour this time around is different; he's clearly trying to maintain a low profile and to avoid any WP:DUCK behaviour. SportsOlympic was blocked on 8 November 2021 and this new account started editing only one day after; this is not unusual because SvG has demonstrated that he refuses to accept his ban on numerous occasions and refuses to sit out the six months required for WP:SO. Whilst he has stopped creating sections called 'personal', the modus operandi is still the same. The overwhelming majority of articles created are basic stubs on sportswomen cited to the usual databases and written in the same format as before. In recent days, he has even had the guts to recreate a few of his previously deleted articles. These include Hanna Nifantava, Jin Jingzhu and María Victoria Rodríguez.

I believe that if this account is checked against SportsOlympic then the similarities should be clear enough. Prior to SportsOlympic, I'm not so sure as I didn't have that many run-ins with some of the older socks. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this one, but they create articles very similar to the ones created by the puppeteer, and at least one of their sockpuppets, SportsOlympic. Popped up on my radar when they recreated 3 articles recently which had been G5'd: Jin Jingzhu, Hanna Nifantava, and Julie Nistad Samsonsen. While they've been around, so had SportsOlympic, so I thought someone should check it out. Onel5969 TT me 18:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While we are still here:

Obviously the same user as Timonspins and co. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

probably better to @GeneralNotability, Spicy, Jack Frost, and Liz: for this new account Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I'm confused, this editor was blocked as a sockpuppet of Sander.v.Ginkel but their contributions were identified as work of Slowking. They have more page creations to tag and delete but I don't know which sockpuppet to attribute them to. Does the proposed history merge mean all of the previous Sander.v.Ginkel socks were actually Slowking? Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since Aart Alblas is being mentioned in this SPI, I would like to mention that Martinus Nijhoff and Hsbcafoul happen to have oddly similiar editing patterns compared to Aart Alblas. Kline | yes? 20:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 July 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I mostly blocked based on something that's too good of a tell to disclose publicly, but it should be obvious from the editing pattern in the (deleted) contribs, as well as the distinctively narrow timecard (compare [34][35][36][37][38] from Spicy's note in the last filing). --Blablubbs (talk) 20:36, 20 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]

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk for sleepers. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Likely - no accounts to compare to, but it's the right ISP and location and some cuwiki data suggests the UA is fairly similar.  No sleepers immediately visible. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Not much idea but worth a check I guess; this user recreated same pages which were previously created by Slowking4. — Tulsi 24x7 03:19, 20 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]

  •  Clerk endorsed - the filing is light on evidence, but based on the recreations ([39], [40]), filter hits ([41]), username pattern and some other tells (WP:BEANS), I'm pretty sure this is Slowking4. Please compare to previous accounts and check for sleepers. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, I'm going with  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) here. UA is identical to Humanhunge (well, it's had an update, but it's the same one), and it's not a particularly common one. Geolocation is fairly nearby but not identical. Behavioural comparison would be needed to be confident. Girth Summit (blether) 17:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'm convinced based on the CU and behavioural evidence. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - please indef the sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged. Closing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

26 September 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Not sure if this is actionable as the account has no edits, but the username leads me to believe this is a sleeper account. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:53, 26 September 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]

  • A username which so vaguely resembles the name of the master (when there's not an established pattern of reusing the same username) is more likely to be chance (or trolling) than socking. When there's no other edits for behavioural comparison or to otherwise warrant a CU check, there's not much SPI can do. no Closing without action. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08 April 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

reverting Slowking4 sock edits back in, other signature edits. Please check for older accounts that could have been missed. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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]

  • Seems quite  Likely (although on the weaker side since my comparison data is not super current), no others seen. Behaviour fits.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. I'll leave the G5s to someone else. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like there are a lot of page creations, though most were last year: [42]. Should probably take a pass through some of the recent ones before archiving. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19 May 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


  • Also the idiosyncratic use of language and edit summaries is consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 19 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]

02 July 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

(Suggesting CU, per precedent for this sockmaster.)

  • Main focus of editing: creating large numbers of stub-size (only a few kB in length) articles on sportspeople/writers/academics
  • Declarations of notability based on awards won: [51], [52]
  • Repetitive edit summaries: [53], [54]
  • Wording on file uploads matches earlier sockpuppets: [55]
  • Translating pages from other Wikipedias: [56], [57]
  • Apparent edit-a-thon engagement: [58]
  • Combative editing approach and edit summaries – seems standard for the sockmaster: [59], [60], [61] SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:31, 2 July 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 August 2023[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]

16 August 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This account's page creation habits are virtually identical to other sockpuppets identified over the last couple of months. Earlier CU checks seemingly didn't spot it, suggesting a different IP range is being used. This, coupled with the account's sporadic activity (stopping in May 2022, suddenly returning on 28 June this year) leads me to suspect that 1) this is some kind of sleeper and 2) given the groups of sockpuppets that were recently unearthed, there are likely to be more. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:43, 16 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]

  •  Clerk endorsed - behaviour looks pretty typical, endorsing to confirm and check for others. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU data is consistent with previous accounts - blocking, tagging as proven. All of their non-stale editing was done out of a single IP, which doesn't have any other activity on it, so it there are more accounts I'm not seeing them at this time. Closing. Girth Summit (blether) 10:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02 September 2023[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]

08 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


@RoySmith: could you possibly also have a look at Arnold Henry Guyot? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask you to file a new report. It's easier to process that way, especially once a report has been closed. RoySmith (talk) 18:29, 9 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]

09 September 2023[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]

12 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Continuing the pattern of edits of the recently blocked Arnold Henry Guyot of rapid-fire template additions and associated talk page edits, plus usual interests in women's sports/academic bios (eg Carolina Guerrero). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 12 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]

21 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


  • Editathon engagement, eg [79][80], and associated welcomes[81]

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 - I've blocked as behaviourally obvious but endorsing CU to check for others given the history. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found Bowser-yowser,  Confirmed to Xurkitre. No other sleepers at this time. I'll go block and tag. --Yamla (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Tagged, closing. Spicy (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

24 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Repeating/continuing edits of the recently blocked Goudabuddha, eg [82]/[83], [84]/[85]. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 24 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]

19 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

recreating the articles of User:Yogiskeel [86] DSP2092talk 21:38, 19 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]

02 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Greavard created 25 Oct, and after two trivial edits, makes two FP reports on pages they haven't edited yet: [87], [88]. A few more trivial edits for autoconfirm, then recreates Roxanna Asgarian, last created by blocked sock User: Ivorybantha. Knee-jerk CU request as this is an LTA with recent blocks. Wikishovel (talk) 10:20, 2 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]

16 November 2023[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]

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - behaviour seems typical for this sockmaster (see also filter hits for Bellbolt). Endorsing to confirm and to check for others as is usual for this case. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of those are  Confirmed  No sleepers immediately visible RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22 November 2023[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]

26 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


  • Editathons (The Easy Life in Kamusari[90][91][[92]])
  • Adding images (Belk Library[93][94])
  • Added citation of the same obscure author as a previously-confirmed sock, just a few hours before. (Efc7, Karinyalu)
Honestly, the third was what caught my eye. I'm not very familiar with this LTA case, so I'm sorry if the other two points look a bit bare: I didn't want this to look like fishing, but having noticed the bizarre coincidence of both citing book reviews by the same author a few hours apart I took a look at the last SPI and then looked at Efc7's other edits for similar.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 26 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]

Gaudypoets is a classic WP:GHBH sleeper: they were created a few years ago but just activated recently, and have pretty much only "accepted" drafts created by other Slowking4 socks, including a bunch that were created while logged out. I was going to block them for meatpuppetry but then they also turned up in a check, so confirmed it is. Clerks, please watch for good-hand accounts like this in future investigations. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


29 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


A lot of the relevant diffs have been deleted, but here are some examples:

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I think Rowerweeds is likely another one. Same m.o. See e.g.:

☆ Bri (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Additional information needed - @Nikkimaria: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • Recommend adding Genastael, Monetbear; WP:BEANS machine-assisted search for editing patterns. Note typical bio article tr. [111][112][113] ☆ Bri (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend adding Judyboat to this bunch. Same discovery technique. Note both women's rugby union bios as is habit [114] & translation, also habit [115]. ☆ Bri (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limospita: tr. obscure sportspeople [116], other markers. ☆ Bri (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least in one case, editing in draft space directly following a Slowking CU-confirmed sock: [117] ☆ Bri (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Pallet182 and Genastael are  Confirmed RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk assistance requested: - There was some broken markup here. I think I fixed it, but please give this a look before archiving to make sure I didn't miss anything. RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, apparently I did miss something because my comments keep ending up here :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The markup problem was most likely the duplicate "Comments by other users" section confusing the SPI helper script. I think I've got it all cleaned up now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per a query on my talk page, the three other accounts (Monetbear, Judyboat, and Limospita) are all  Stale so I couldn't do anything with them from a CU point of view. Bri given how long it is since any of those accounts were active, I don't think there's much point in worrying about them. RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Hews to the LTA pattern; WiR article creation starting with fully-formed, syntactically perfect article [118] and consistent talkpage tagging [119]; article translation [120]; little use of edit summaries; blank user page; username smells like Captcha. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I mis-read the November 2022 edit as November 2023. OK to wait for behavioral investigation. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
☆ Bri (talk) 05:49, 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]

  •  Check declined by a checkuser - Last edit was over a year ago. RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bri It's great that you're helping out here (that's not just a platitude, we need all the help we can get), but all of these accounts are inactive. As a general rule, SPI ignores inactive accounts. Partly because the CU tool doesn't keep data that long, partly because it's not worth the trouble to investigate an account if it's not doing anything, and partly because WP:BLOCKP says Blocks should be used to ... prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption. The most recent edit from any of the three accounts listed here was 9 months ago; even if somebody wanted to put in the effort to investigate them, it would be hard to argue that blocking them would be in compliance with BLOCKP. Closing with no action taken. RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Usual LTA signatures

  • Precocious creation of short, syntactically perfect biographies of women in a single edit [129][130][131][132][133]
  • Tagging WiR [134][135][136][137][138]
  • captcha-like usernames (n.b. "nous" and "pleut" are individual words in French)
  • involvement in editathons/meetups [139]
  • each account's editing career started with an article wizard page creation as their very first edit, followed rapidly by ~10 build-out edits, then (with limited intervening edits) by a move to mainspace

All accounts except Newsyboozy have been active October 2023 or later. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

You know, I've invested some time in this in the past to cleanup stuff made by sockpuppets. But, I'm at a loss really as to the meaning of this. We've been fighting Slowking4 for 12 years now. The whole thing is futile. Slowking4 has won. Thousands upon thousands of edits made by Slowking4 with no sign ever of slowing up. The vast, vast majority of the edits go undetected, many articles go undeleted, and we're left with an editor that quite happily continues to edit on the project. Our tools are completely inadequate to the task of stopping it. I don't see the point of wasting time on this anymore. Unless somebody can come up with better tools to stop this, it is all a colossal waste of time. Note that Meta:Requests for comment/Slowking4 resulted in no consensus to globally ban. So, again, what's the point of all this? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blocked and tagged, contribs scrubbed, etc. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missed one: Sendshiney (talk · contribs) is also  Likely and blocked on behaviour. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft: this is probably better off on a talk page somewhere, but I feel that. There are some cases here where the user makes decent contributions and we only keep blocking their new accounts because that's what our policy says to do. I tend to stay away from those. This one, though, creates extremely poor-quality articles on subjects that are almost never notable and would end up deleted through regular processes anyway. It's a lot less of a waste of time for me to mass-delete them than it would be to let them all go through those processes and waste other editors' time. Besides, it's way more of a timesink for the sockmaster than it is for me: this group's stub contribs went back about six months, and I deleted them in about the time it took to brew a pot of coffee. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


  • LTA-style stub WiR translation [150][151][152]
  • European women athletes esp. Olympics [153]
  • Consistent edit summaries with LTA habits
  • Article wizard creation as first, or nearly-first edit [154][155][156] followed by page move some time later [157][158][159]

I believe editing is in scope for checkuser: the earliest latest edit for the three accounts is 27 September 2023. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:25, 12 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]

  • Lurkexes and Chicniki are  Confirmed to each other, and all three are  Likely based on past data. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23 December 2023[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]

27 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Per LTA

  • The usual captcha-style username
  • Precocious ability to create a syntactically perfect article in one edit [160]
  • Editathon involvement & project tagging [161][162][163]

Fin ☆ Bri (talk) 02:17, 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.

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

01 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Usual LTA signatures

  • Rapid, perfect creation of women's bios by new editor
  • Tagging [164][165]
  • Sculling/rowing/canoeing competitors same as last report
  • Captcha style username
  • First or nearly first edit is article wizard bio creation [166], followed by rapid edits expanding article to syntactically perfect state [167]

End of report. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:53, 1 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]

04 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Recreation of Naima Mahmudova, which was made by one of the master's puppets. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This doesn't look like Slowking to me, behaviorally. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • no Declined - this account was blocked more than a month ago. Checkuser can only be used in defense against active disruption, and there is no evidence of it here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked them today, but yes, they were not active in more than a month. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, thanks for that. I still think that CU wouldn't be useful, since there are checked cases in the archive from just a few days ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Similar behavior to known socks, mass creation of biographies ready in one go, captcha-like name, involvement in editing contests (example creation: Amber McBride). Cf. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Slowking4. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 16:57, 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]

  • It's probably not a captcha name, and the other behavioural similarities could apply to many editors who participate in Women in Red. In fact this account lacks many of Slowking4's distinctive behavioural cues, which tend to be consistent across accounts. Because of this, I did not run a check, but I do want to note that there is some historical information that makes this account look very, very unrelated to Slowking. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Follows LTA hallmarks:

  • New account following CAPTHCA username convention
  • first edit was removing deletion tag from a suspected Slowking4 article

Ends ☆ Bri (talk) 16:25, 7 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]

26 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Precocious new editor with behavior consistent to the LTA:

  • Focus on WiR sportspeople, concordant tagging [168][169][170]
  • One of their first edits was a translation from de.wiki [171]
  • Other sportspeople bio translations [172][173]
  • Username consistency

Ends ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 26 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]

17 February 2024[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]

21 February 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


  • Also the idiosyncratic use of language is consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Just noting for future analysis, this account was created in 2019, made three edits, and was a sleeper for almost exactly four years to the day. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 February 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Behavior consistent with LTA:

  • Captcha-style account name
  • Translations of biographies [174][175]
  • Project tagging [176][177]
  • SPA topics of interest

This account was created, made fewer than 20 edits with the last one on 22 November 2019, then "went to sleep" to return to editing on 24 February this year. In the 21 February SPI filing, the account was created on 22 November 2019, made three edits, and slept until January 2024.

End of report. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:39, 26 February 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]

27 February 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Behavior is a little less clear cut on this one, so sorry to whoever if it's not a match.

  • Captcha-style username (maybe?)
  • Precocious signup for wiki event [178]
  • Precocious editing capabilities including perfectly formatted all-at-once new bio on their first day of editing [179]
  • Project tagging [180]
  • Biography SPA and their choice of biographies to work on is consistent with LTA

End of new report. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the file -- another sleeper account, created six months before first edit. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:16, 29 February 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]

  •  Likely given the behavioural evidence. Same rough geographical area but different range. Possible they were at an editathon or similar; there are a few other accounts on the same IP with editing interests that aren't wildly dissimilar but they appear to be on different devices.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04 March 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Though last edit was June 2023, adding to SPI at request of Courcelles due to large number of articles created by the sock (~70). Many or all follow documented LTA habits:

  • subject matter
  • method of creation: precocious ability to do all-at-once syntactically correct bios [181]
  • project hashtagging [182][183]
  • nonfree image uploading and insertion to a Slowking4-created article [184]
  • logging a translated page as "from" in edit summary [185]

End of report. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, adding another two last active May 2023. The first one has 20 creations of which 3 have been deleted; two of these have the signature "from" creations on translated bios [186][187]. The other also has the signature "from" creations on four translated bios [188][189] & Montserrat Poza, Susan Monclús Twomey (admin permissions required, or view user log). Of course Sloejoys is also a CAPTCHA username. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not dispositive, but there are hits with the master on the editor interaction analyzer.
Skwovet, like the BrittWadner account I started the filing with, has uploaded, then added a nonfree image to a bio created by the master [190]. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more, Hatermelt, last edited April 2023; similar stuff including CAPTCHA name, and two matching, perfectly-formatted bio stubs created on the same day the account was registered [191][192]. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something I noticed about the Pappagena acount that was noted by Nikkimaria: they created Veronica Madìa 2021-09-27, and if I understand the history right, it had already been G5d on 2021-08-21 as a Slowking4 creation. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:34, 5 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]

  • Bri didn't give me the account when asking, but looking at it now, I agree even more with filing it. That's a lot of G5 eligible low-visibility BLP's if we are convinced the account is a sock. Courcelles (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independently of this SPI, I blocked the following accounts based on CU data:

Spicy (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone through the contribs of each of these accounts, and G5'd any articles that were eligible and didn't have substantial contributions by legitimate editors. Tagged the remaining accounts.  Requested actions completed, closing The WordsmithTalk to me 22:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note that I've retagged the accounts listed in the original filing. They were not CU confirmed because they are stale. If you want to get pedantic, the ones I listed aren't exactly confirmed either, but not everyone is as pedantic as me. Spicy (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Noted, my mistake. It looks like the "tag" function of {{Sock list}} automatically preloaded "Confirmed". The WordsmithTalk to me 02:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Again sorry to editor if this is incorrect, the LTA signature is less strong than usual.

  • Precocious abilities generally
    • First edit [193] incorporating correctly formatted citation template
    • Utilized draft move facility on second day of editing [194]
  • Women's bios, precocious ability to do correctly formatted article creations after only four prior edits [195]
  • Project tagging [196][197]

Checkuser requested for sleepers. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 7 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]

21 March 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

behavior match to LTA

  • Precocious ability to create articles or drafts w/o syntactic errors: see first edit [198] made on the day the account was created
  • Creating drafts then moving own draft [199] in same week the account was created
  • Translated article [200] from fr.wiki, though the translation appears unattributed; there may be others e.g. ua.wiki
  • Singleminded focus on biographies of a certain demographic
  • Project tagging [201][202]

The account seems to have been created immediately after the last CU sweep, i.e. on 8 March. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:48, 21 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]

  •  Confirmed to Vectorspectre. No obvious others this time. Spicy (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26 March 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Usual LTA behaviors.

  • Precocious new account's first edits are a bunch of article assessments in the LTA's subject area starting with [203]
  • Account left dormant for a while, then on their next day editing, they create a new sportsperson bio [204], and move it to main space [205]
  • Tagging [206]
  • Portions of this creation appear to be unattributed copy/translation from fr.wiki, including redlinks for articles that exist on fr.wiki but not en.wiki. There may be more.

End of report. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd account Sailbail entered, diffs not provided; substantially identical patterns; LTA style name convention. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:33, 26 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]

  • Both are highly  Likely at minimum. With behavioural evidence I'd say there's more than enough to call it  Confirmed. Comegrams appears to have joined an editathon which is consistent with the master's MO but makes it difficult to tell sleepers from innocent participants.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02 April 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Behavior is a match for some aspects of the LTA.

  • Suspicious ability to rapidly create new sportsperson biographies, syntactically correct in a single edit, and after only a few other edits; these were all within the space of 75 minutes, after exactly 8 other edits that I can see: [207][208][209]
  • More bio creations fitting LTA pattern: [210][211][212]
  • Project tagging [213]
  • Possible name convention match

Once again, apologies to the editor if this is a false alarm. CU requested due to history of sleepers. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We also have something odd here that I picked up from article histories, but I'll just leave that as a hint for CU. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:30, 2 April 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]

  • From a technical perspective I'd say it's  Possible, bordering on  Likely taking into account the behavioural similarity. Geolocation is not (quite) what we've come to expect from previous socks so I might leave this to see if a CU more familiar with Slowking wants to have a look and possibly make a more definitive conclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also checked and I'm skeptical that this is them, behaviourally and technically. I would not say  Likely, only  Possible, and only  Possible rather than  Unlikely/Red X Unrelated because Slowking travels a lot. I did not check Joeykai - they have over 300k edits, any overlap is likely to be coincidental. Spicy (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05 April 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


  • Lots of edit filter warnings about "Large creations by inexperienced user", and their editing shows unusual precociousness, e.g. an all-at-once, syntactically perfect biography as their 20th edit [214].
  • Their specialty is also in a rather unusual biography area that was visited heavily by Slowking socks lately.
  • Tagging consistent with LTA [215][216][217][218]

The positive evidence is offset by the fact their first draft was submitted through AFC [219] rather than moving own draft, and it doesn't tick all the boxes in some other ways (not spelling out how, per WP:BEANS), so my confidence is low on this one but thought that it should be checked. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:31, 5 April 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]

08 April 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The usual LTA and/or precocious behaviors including:

  • Tagging/assessment of projects as one of their first edits [220]
  • More project tagging [221]
  • Sportsperson bio creations [222][223][224]
  • Poorly or not at all attributed sportsperson bio translation [225][226]
  • Moving own drafts to article space [227][228]
  • Captcha style usernames

End of report. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:22, 8 April 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/Slowking4/Archive&oldid=1220084074"