Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alechkoist/Archive

12 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Sudden burst of activity to make identical edits (e.g. ) at Functional medicine from these relatively fresh a/cs. Alexbrn (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2016 (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

 * , see also User talk:Calospaz. All blocked. Huon (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing more to do. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

13 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This is a bit of an odd situation. I have a handful of accounts here that are making articles for a website named Economic Calendar, one of which I'm not certain if he's a sockpuppet or if he's just unlucky enough to have landed in this situation by chance.

Yesterday Marebellez tried to create an article for this website at Talk:Economic calendar (website). This was blanked by Reddogsix, as it was an article in the talkspace. A few minutes later a new account, ShirazTbone, tried to create the article at Economic calendar (website), which was speedy deleted.

Today Perezcorradi created Economic Calendar website, which I just speedied. The content is not completely identical, but several portions were very clearly copied near verbatim from the deleted articles. This is where I discovered the various accounts, since there was a post by Rebbing mentioning the initial articles.

There is another account that's slightly involved, Newrunner769, as they argued for the page's inclusion as opposed to just removing the tags. While this is a bit strange, I think that it's likely that they're just a newer user that had the sheer bad luck to have tried to argue to keep a page that happened to have possible ties to sockpuppetry. My first instinct is that they're uninvolved, but I figured that I would mention it anyway. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:03, 13 February 2016 (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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Still working on the blocking and tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts. Tagged or retagged. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still working on the blocking and tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts. Tagged or retagged. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still working on the blocking and tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts. Tagged or retagged. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still working on the blocking and tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts. Tagged or retagged. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still working on the blocking and tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts. Tagged or retagged. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still working on the blocking and tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts. Tagged or retagged. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still working on the blocking and tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts. Tagged or retagged. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still working on the blocking and tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts. Tagged or retagged. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still working on the blocking and tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the unblocked accounts. Tagged or retagged. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

22 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Only contribution was the creation of Doug Ward, which was then edited by three of the already-blocked socks. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Follow-up - Not sure what to do with this, but in looking at the contributions of the blocked socks, I'm noticing several intersections with other accounts with similar editing habits. I don't want to point any fingers at this point, but I wonder if anyone has already dug deeper (specifically, looking at the article creators of the pages the blocked accounts have edited... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:58, 22 February 2016 (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

 * For the record, Tenemefe is ✅. Not sure what else I can find that wasn't found last week, but I'll have a look in the archive. Courcelles (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , if there's anything in particular you'd like me to look at, let me know. Nothing in a cursory look jumps off the page at me.  I have deleted Doug Ward as a G5.     Courcelles (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sock blocked and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

25 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Master is a paid editor I believe, and this account re-created an article deleted G5: 1000 Degrees Pizzeria. Of some note also is, who added a link to this article to List of franchises. While Sundra could just be a fan, it is notable that another confirmed sock added a similar link to List of pizza chains of the United States.

CU at your discretion, given the number of socks found above. Crow Caw  02:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

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


 * I had spent a little time looking through edits a few days ago. There are a few clear subjects on which the socks overlap, so it seems worth looking into accounts which also overlap on those topics and have similar editing behavior. Those articles include office warranty, Luanne Hunt, Alejandro Toledo (musician)/Alejandro Toledo and the Magic Tombolinos, Economic Calendar website/Economic calendar (website), functional medicine, Paolo Petrocelli, Soundwalk Collective, Jonah Parzen-Johnson, and 1000 Degrees Pizzeria. There are a number of potential accounts to look into, but the two most prolific are (recently active) and  (last edits in 2013). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 07:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the behavioral evidence for the accounts above merits re-opening this. Advice? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I would endorse a CU here and I would add to the check. 1000 Degrees Pizzeria appears to be the key here., a confirmed sock of , added it to the list List of pizza chains of the United States (diff). Both Nonecouncil and  (another confirmed sock) created and edited the article 1000 Degrees Pizzeria previously which was subsequently deleted. Prior to late January 2016, this article had no attention or ever existed.
 * Japancolours was discovered on 5 February 2016 and Nonecouncil was discovered and blocked on 13 February 2016. Most of Sundra16 and PorridgeJohnson1's activity occur after the block of the other accounts. In fact all but one edit. Another point to note is that Nonecouncil added a mention to 1000 Degrees Pizza and used a DBusiness story to the article Livonia Marketplace (diff). PorridgeJohnson1 would also use this as a cited source in the article 1000 Degrees Pizzeria along with many of the same citations and wording used by the other two sock puppets.
 * Changing this to CU requested and also recommending a check for sleepers as per past history. I'm going to hold off on a block as I'd like to see the outcome of the check although I believe the behavioural evidence is very strong with PorridgeJohnson1 but somewhat circumstantial with Sundra16. Mkdw talk 04:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to check at your "request", but unless trainees aren't permitted to do so, you should have changed the status to endorse. I thought there was a parameter for self-endorse, meaning you're endorsing it on your own, but I don' see it in the template doc.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * PorridgeJohnson1 and Sundra16 are ❌ to the master.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * is to Sundra16.
 * Blocked Sundra16 without a tag.
 * I'll leave it to the clerk to determine the disposition/tagging of the other accounts. One more piece of advice, : if you add a puppet to the SPI, please don’t just allude to it in the body – add it to the list of suspected puppets at the top. Makes it much easier for a CheckUser, at least for me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * to as master with behavioural evidence tags only:
 * (awaiting advice on appropriate tag)
 * Now that the CU determined Sundra16 was engaging in abusively using multiple accounts, along with their fixation on 1000 Degrees Pizzeria, the evidence is strong enough to make a behavioural tie to Alechkoist. Legallookout by CU evidence is therefore also tied to Alechkoist.
 * As for, I believe that without a definitive CU result, the account cannot be reasonably tied to any of the other accounts. The behavioural evidence is simply not there. I have gone through the edits of every sock puppet and found no overlap. If feels the technical data is strong enough to alone tie the accounts together, or they see behavioural evidence I do not, only then do I see a block in place there being possible.  Mkdw talk 05:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure which tag is the most appropriate for Legallookout. The account has been technically tied to Sundra16, but indirectly tied to Alechkoist. In cases like this has sockpuppet been applied twice? One with the "blocked" perimeter for Alechkoist and then a second template with the "cuconfirmed" perimeter for Sundra16? Mkdw talk 06:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See Template:Sockpuppet, it supports alternate masters. In this case, something like . Also note that tagging a blocked sock as suspected is rare, because if all there are are suspicions, then a block is questionable. Either the sockpuppetry is CU confirmed (status=confirmed) or proven behaviourally (status=proven). ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  06:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that the CU determined Sundra16 was engaging in abusively using multiple accounts, along with their fixation on 1000 Degrees Pizzeria, the evidence is strong enough to make a behavioural tie to Alechkoist. Legallookout by CU evidence is therefore also tied to Alechkoist.
 * As for, I believe that without a definitive CU result, the account cannot be reasonably tied to any of the other accounts. The behavioural evidence is simply not there. I have gone through the edits of every sock puppet and found no overlap. If feels the technical data is strong enough to alone tie the accounts together, or they see behavioural evidence I do not, only then do I see a block in place there being possible.  Mkdw talk 05:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure which tag is the most appropriate for Legallookout. The account has been technically tied to Sundra16, but indirectly tied to Alechkoist. In cases like this has sockpuppet been applied twice? One with the "blocked" perimeter for Alechkoist and then a second template with the "cuconfirmed" perimeter for Sundra16? Mkdw talk 06:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See Template:Sockpuppet, it supports alternate masters. In this case, something like . Also note that tagging a blocked sock as suspected is rare, because if all there are are suspicions, then a block is questionable. Either the sockpuppetry is CU confirmed (status=confirmed) or proven behaviourally (status=proven). ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  06:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Closing after Salvidrim! tagged the last account. Mkdw talk 06:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

28 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Recreating the Doug Ward article (as "Dough ward") with the same references (including a mis-cased "Financial times") as last week's sockpuppet User:Tenemefe. McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment - Still hoping for advice regarding my comment in the SPI above, but adding that perhaps we can also check based on it being the only real contributor to Alejandro Toledo (musician) other than already-blocked socks (such that it could qualify for G5 -- it's already been prodded, but that was removed by another sock). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 22:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I am endorsing/second statement that a CU is required here. I have looked at the deleted contributions for both accounts and they mirror a striking similarity. I also believe a check for sleepers is required considering this sock master is persistently creating new accounts.  Mkdw talk 04:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree on check for sleepers as the person has recently created multiple accounts. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a mess. There's been so much use of webhosts and proxies (one user was editing from three countries on two different continents) that the only finding I'm confident in giving with regard to is .  has done work on this case previously, perhaps he can take a look and see whether it makes sense?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the continent issue, which is by and large true, although the majority of accounts who have been confirmed are editing from one particular continent, which is not the continent that Daisy184 is editing from. AFAIK - and is more experienced with this than I - Daisy184 is not using a proxy or webhost. Thus, based on the technical evidence only, my finding would be ❌. Either way, inconclusive or unrelated, the account should not be blocked based on technical evidence. It can still of course be blocked based on behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to not recommend a block. I don't think the behavioural evidence is strong enough alone. While the article versions both accounts created were similar, there were also differences. For example, it's possible that the first attempts at creating this article were by one party, possibly close to the source, and then the subsequent creation attempts were done by another editor, such as a black hat editor, at the behest of the first party. If the versions were word for word or with identical phrasing, I may have been more inclined for block under WP:DUCK. Mkdw talk 00:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to close this CU. I know you had flagged two accounts and a number of articles for the SPI earlier. I am willing to look into them but in order to best serve this SPI process, it would be helpful if you start another SPI and properly list the accounts and evidence. The accounts and articles need to be cross-referenced and the evidence presented at the SPI. Please concisely but comprehensively outline how exactly you believe the accounts are tied together and to the sock master/other proven socks. Mkdw talk 18:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

20 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Rubenstein.mark created AppInstitute on 11 April, on 14 April AppInstitute a logo to commons which was added to the article by User:MamadeH on 15 April with their 4th edit. With their next edit they recreated Samieh Rizk which over the years has been deleted three times in the past. Although Rubenstein.mark made some edits in 2010 they only began creating content this year and most of it looks to me like they are undisclosed paid editors. SmartSE (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The most recently blocked accounts are all stale, but based on this edit it may be a return of TejaswaChaudhary: BeHappy2Day was first created by User:RonnyDiamond in October and then again in February by DikandaLink with later edits by Cordobaladocta. SmartSE (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you'll find it anyway but I've added another that created Akikur Reza Mohammad who founded Inspire Malibu (created by Rubenstein 3 days later). SmartSE (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2016 (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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will block, tag, and close shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2016 (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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked and tagged. A lot of these accounts created articles that are subject to G5. Could you please take a look and delete them if appropriate? Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. A lot of these accounts created articles that are subject to G5. Could you please take a look and delete them if appropriate? Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. A lot of these accounts created articles that are subject to G5. Could you please take a look and delete them if appropriate? Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. A lot of these accounts created articles that are subject to G5. Could you please take a look and delete them if appropriate? Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. A lot of these accounts created articles that are subject to G5. Could you please take a look and delete them if appropriate? Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. A lot of these accounts created articles that are subject to G5. Could you please take a look and delete them if appropriate? Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. A lot of these accounts created articles that are subject to G5. Could you please take a look and delete them if appropriate? Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. A lot of these accounts created articles that are subject to G5. Could you please take a look and delete them if appropriate? Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. A lot of these accounts created articles that are subject to G5. Could you please take a look and delete them if appropriate? Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. A lot of these accounts created articles that are subject to G5. Could you please take a look and delete them if appropriate? Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. A lot of these accounts created articles that are subject to G5. Could you please take a look and delete them if appropriate? Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll run through them tomorrow and take care of it. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Recreated EnerBank previously created by this group at Enerbank USA. SmartSE (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The old accounts are stale by now, but I've found other (stale) accounts that recreated other articles since the previous case, so it is quite likely that other accounts may be found from CUing TigreBoat99. For the record, users I've found so far are:




 * As with this sock, they were creating the new articles under slightly different titles to avoid scrutiny. SmartSE (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Added another un-stale account that recreated Lottoland_Ltd. previously at Lottoland. SmartSE (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2017 (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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I don't wish to explain in public, but I have off-wiki evidence to link this account to Alechkoist. Please drop me an email and I will explain. Given the history and that Bytebrand is obviously UPE, can we please check for other accounts? SmartSE (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Added another found via the same method. SmartSE (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The same reasoning also links them to Sockpuppet_investigations/F1F2F2/Archive who have been active more recently. SmartSE (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2018 (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❤ 13:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Listed accounts - blocking, no tags pending further info - TNT❤ 13:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Emailing you now - TNT❤ 13:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you get a chance to look at the email? FTR, also looked at it and compared these with the most recent F1F2F2 accounts and agreed there are behavioural similarities, in which case that case should be merged into this one. SmartSE (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there anything else that needs to be done here or can this be closed? Sro23 (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Close - TNT❤ 08:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)