Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/8yd/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This user is certainly quacking. Both accounts have similar names shown a pattern of vandalizing User talk:Rich Smith (e.g., , , ). The new account after they were blocked following my warnings. One of the recent acts of vandalism appears to at, the editor who blocked the original account. Out of courtesy, I am pinging since his talk page in involved. TornadoLGS (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

- Yet another vandalism on my talk page, as well as 's - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 15:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The suspected sockpuppet has a username in the same format as the original and is targeting the same talkpages as the original and the talkpages of users involved in previous blocks and SPI discussions. See the following diffs for examples from the original and a confirmed sock. ,,. And for the current account:, , , , ,. While normally, I would go with WP:DENY on this, this is at least the third sockpuppet account of this person, so I am opening this investigation to see if any rangeblocks are warranted. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Case history for comparison, will review 25th's report ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing per below. Spicy (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User attacked the same user talk pages as, already listed here, and has a nearly identical username. The user has only a handful of edits, so specific diffs are not needed. While the account is already blocked, I am bringing it here for consideration of possible rangeblocks. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * is to . Behavioural match. Tagging as proven, not confirmed. Unable to action a rangeblock at this time. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like there's anything more to do here. Closing case. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar name and same pattern of behavior as with and  of targeting  talk pages of users involved in previous blocks. This account has only a handful of edits, so specific diffs are not needed. The account is already blocked, but I am including this here for documentation and to help nail down the IP range if future abuse warrants rangeblocks. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * They were blocked by a CU, so I presume anything that needs doing has been done – closing without further action, . --Blablubbs (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See previous entries for, , and. Account is already blocked, but I'm adding this per the recommendation from a checkuser for documentation and to aid in determining the IP range for possible future rangeblocks. Sockpuppetry and vandalism from this person seems to be accelerating. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

It was an informal off-wiki discussion. My main reasoning for filing these is to have them in one place to constrain the IP range for potential rangeblocks, since it seems this abuse is likely to continue. Or is this unnecessary for such actions? If so, I will stop. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Could you point me to the discussion about continuing to file all of these? I generally recommend against filing obvious vandalsocks (especially in cases where all creations are sequential), both because of WP:DENY and because LTA-pattern vandalism-only accounts are regularly checked without any SPI requests anyway. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would defer to in this instance  there are some benefits to reporting these but given the eyes now routinely on these accounts (they're hitting my user talk page so...), I'd agree with not creating any more cases at this time. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Account already blocked, nothing to do per above, closing. Spicy (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)