Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexiulian25/Archive

07 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Alexiulian25 was blocked indefinitely on 12:31, 6 January 2016 for persistent disruption. On 12:56, 7 January 2016 a new account was created, Fanatic of Football, and has since resumed editing with a pattern consistent with Alexiulian25. CheckUser is requested to determine if this is an act of block evasion. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I'll also point out that there are about a dozen intersections between the users, which is odd, because Fanatic of Football only started editing today. There are also some strong stylistic similarities between the two users' userpages.
 * - I am here to edit and improve only FOOTBALL, the most beautiful and popular game in the WORLD.
 * - I LOVE <3 FOOTBALL, the best sport on the Earth.
 * There's also some odd choices of boldface:
 * - Please edit Wikipedia Football of English Wikipedia
 * - ...improve and create so many football articles, from the beginning of football till present, and the time is short...
 * Seems a bit ducky. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I initially approached the blocking admin at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee, who said it would be better brought here and a checkuser requested. Further similarities:
 * at User talk:Deryck Chan, they expressed their philosophy of Wikipedia as allowing own research, advertising, a paid team of editors, betting sponsorship and a chatroom to rival Facebook, as per, below which is his list of the people he would have on his team;
 * pestering other editors e.g. 1 2, 3, to help create new football competition pages, as did Alexiulian25 e.g. 1, 2, 3.
 * cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I suspect repeat socking is a distinct possibility, I thought an SPI would be a good idea for the record, especially if Alexiulian25 does ever try to come back after a Standard Offer period - and I'd wager a CU would find the new one also in Romania, even if the IPs might be different. I also didn't want Alexiulian25 to think it's just me picking on him, and would welcome another admin taking whatever steps might be needed. (And as an aside, I hate to be so hard on his enthusiasm, but he's taking enthusiasm to the point of disruption and just can't understand the problems.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I don't think any further sleeper checks are needed - subtlety doesn't seem to be a tool in his toolbox. I'm also happy for this to be closed now. (And as the master does not have talk page access due to inappropriate use, I think it's appropriate that the sock also should not have talk page access.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Before this SPI is closed could you also tag as a sock for completeness. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The two accounts are ✅. I've tagged the master and blocked/tagged the puppet. Thee are a few articles created by the puppet that can be legimitately deleted per G5. I'll leave that decision up to the administrators on this page (so many for one lil SPI). I haven't closed the SPI because I wasn't sure if anyone had a reasonable belief that there might be sleepers. It appears to me that the editing pattern of this individual is relatively identifiable, but I'm willing to do a check. Just be aware that I didn't find any obvious sleepers and would have to do a deeper probe, so don't make me do the extra work if it's not really likely. If no sleeper check is needed, I'd appreciate it if one of the admins would close the report. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot. I blocked the puppet without Talk page access based on the master. If anyone wants to restore Talk page access, they don't need my permission to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm putting this on hold. Please do not close. In the interim,, can you please tell me why you blocked Alexidlayide? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , it was because of the name similarity and because User talk:Alexiulian25 is the only page they've ever edited in their very short time here. Their very first action, just a minute after registering the account, was to revert an edit by Alexiulian25 and reinstate a problematic section to their user page. It's possible they're not a sock, but if not then it seems they were only here to cause trouble. Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
 * Other than the one revert, which the user said was accidental, the other edits were all taking Alexiulian25 to task for socking. That said, I fully understand your reaction.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha, so going by the CU result below it seems likely the Alexidlayide account was created to take issue with Alexiulian25 and evade scrutiny. So, a sock, but not of Alexiulian25. Short block of Lemonade51 and warning, as you suggest, seems good to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Alexidlayide is ❌ to Alexiulian25.
 * Alexidlayide and are ✅. In addition, Lemonade51 does a great deal of editing without logging in. The technical characteristics of the two accounts are not just identical but identical in complex ways. For example, two accounts can be technically indistinguishable when they edit from the same location using the same ISP and use the same computer and the same browser. However, they can also be indistinguishable if, in addition, they use the same computers (plural) and the same browsers (plural). The latter is the case with these two accounts, in spite of the small number of edits by Alexidlayide. Simply put, the technical evidence is iron-clad. However, given some of the constructive contributions to the project, my inclination would be to block the account for a short period of time, and warn them that they obviously should not create sock accounts but also should not edit without logging in, particularly with the frequency and the editing of the same pages or related pages. I invite others to provide their input about the editing history of Lemonade51. I'm not knowledgeable about European football, or any football for that matter. However, unless I am persuaded otherwise, I will sanction the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just saw this on my notification (and if it's fine for me to have my say); I'm OK with a block and to take full responsibility for the 'Alexidlayide' account. But I categorically deny that it was created by me. Dubious and ridiculous as it may sound, it was rather the work of my friend, who signed up to Wikipedia when I explained to him about the football portal shortly before Christmas. I told him about a particular user who kept reverting the Ballon d'Or page, so he got kicks reverting his user page and writing broken English. All the edits were done at my home, when he's stayed over (the reason I do most of my edits using an IP address is because the network isn't secure, or I'm at work), and I only clocked on two days ago when he didn't delete the browsing history. Error of judgement on my part, so I apologise. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, I don't accept these kinds of explanations, but in your case it's more plausible than in other cases. Assuming it's true, what about the editing without logging in? That's a continuing problem and is unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a force of habit (which I'm trying to change). I very rarely work on locked articles, so sometimes I genuinely forget to log in, or just clear the cache and submit (even if the page warns me I'm about to edit using an IP address). Other times my network isn't always secure; moreover for privacy reasons, I choose not to sign in at work. Nearly all my edits relate to football, and if you have a look at the last three IP addresses I've edited under:

There is no malicious or disruptive editing, and no instances of trying to cause trouble on a user page. Purely maintenance work, expanding articles or reverting vandalism, which can be tied in my account. If these actions are inappropriate, then I say sorry and will make an effort to always edit logged in. What's evident though is the 'Alexidlayide' incident happened on my watch (and computer), so a ban is justifiable. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, blocks are preventative, and with the Alexidlayide thing under control there's nothing to prevent - I don't see a need for any action on this now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thanks for being so forthright, . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

09 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

These IP's are going around reinstating Alex's edits which were reverted per WP:DENY. See 1, 2, 3, 4, among others. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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


 * Added User:Statistics Football For Wiki. New user has made 2 edits, both referring to pages made by User:Alexiulian25, see and - wanting a complete list of Copa del Rey goals was one of the first things Alexiulain wanted, see User:Alexiulian25/Copa del Rey Topscorers. Username similarity to another sock as well. WP:DUCK Joseph2302 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not know alexiulian, I made an account because I want to edit Copa del Rey, and I was looking for a complete list of topscorers, and no other football site have a complete one, and I have found one on this article: Football records in Spain, top 10, and I am interested in all list which was delete from there. Is something notable to have the complete list, can someone find it on the internet ? It can not be found!--Statistics Football For Wiki (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Course, you just happened to find out about Alexiulian's pages on them, despite the fact they don't appear on a Google search, like you claimed? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The IPs seem too geographically diverse to be the same editor. Khet Huay Khwang, Bangkok; Jakarta, Indonesia; Petah Tikva, Israel. Unless they're open access or similar, I don't think they're the same. The wording is similar though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to believe they are open access. Otherwise we're accepting that three unrelated editors with little to prior wiki experience all discovered the undo button for the first time within half an hour of each other, and all thought that reinstating the evasive edits of the same sockmaster is a good idea. It doesn't seem plausible to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Four. (from Brazil this time) reverted me at various World Football Challenge articles, a battleground for Alexiulian25. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Five. reverted two different areas. He's getting sloppy now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And three more.
 * The later two posted personal attacks to my talk page. Given the timing of these edits, it seems likely that their related. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The later two posted personal attacks to my talk page. Given the timing of these edits, it seems likely that their related. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The later two posted personal attacks to my talk page. Given the timing of these edits, it seems likely that their related. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The later two posted personal attacks to my talk page. Given the timing of these edits, it seems likely that their related. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * . For tracking purposes only: I was contacted by on 23:29, 9 January 2016,  asking to restore two articles that were previously created by a sock of Alexiulian25, and that I subseqently deleted under WP:CSD. Advised IP, basically staying that the material needs to be re-started from scratch (WP:BE). Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Folks, I know this is frustrating, but I can make a couple of obvious comments. I believe that if you geolocate each IP listed, you'll find that they share one thing in common: they're all using proxies, which, of course, hides their true location. Second, every IP is in a different range, making it very hard to stem the disruption. You'd have to pick them off one by one, and there appears to be a rather large supply of them. That said, if an administrator, wants to block them, including, whether it be for sock puppetry based on behavior or simply for the combination of disruption and proxy use, they can of course do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything done here. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

10 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I'm adding another IP engaged in reinstating evasive edits. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Added 185.56.90.70, it is pretty open about their block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding 5.154.190.220. It might be worth actually blocking this IP since Alex seems to be sticking to this one for a while. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Those IPs are not active any more. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

17 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same sort of behaviour and going to user talkpages saying Can you find another way backlinks several material will be deleted (I used google translate) and that is one of the things Alexiulian25 repeated, that editors only want to delete (for example removed here at their userpage). Qed237&#160;(talk) 12:44, 17 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

 * I've declined the CU request. We rarely publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * IP is no longer active, closing. Mike V • Talk 00:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

19 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This newly created editor imediately created articles previously created by a Alexiulian25 sock,, for example 1975 Cupa României Final, Dan Păltinişan and 1974 Cupa României Final. Qed237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 16:09, 19 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
Blocked and tagged based on behavior. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Obvious block-evading IP 5.154.190.218 blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

19 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Their only edits so far have been to this SPI. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

JMHamo (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Account has been blocked by JMHamo (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Account blocked, closing. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

19 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Recreated articles on 1974 Cupa României Final and 1975 Cupa României Final, both which were created by another Alexiulian sock earlier today. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

For tracking purposes, I'm adding another IP to the investigation, which rather amusingly has accused me of being an Alexiulan sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A "mastersuck", no less! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Account has been blocked by JMHamo (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Account blocked, closing. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

23 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Edit summaries are structurally very similar to those of Alexiulian socks. Compare this, to this (for example). This account also has an exclusive interest in Romanian football, one of Alex's main topics of interest. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Account created on 23 January 2016 at 21:16, definitely looks like a new sock... JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I am interested in Galati football and i plan to edit and corect the information about teams from my native city. who is this man and why i am involved in a argument ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcos719 (talk • contribs)

I dont know about this edit it says there was edited by fanatic of football not me - i am here bcz i am interested in Galati football teams, i dont know about arab football! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcos719 (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked the account, closing. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 00:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

30 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

A sock already blocked once for reinstating edits made by Alexiulian25's confirmed sock. Reverted my reverts of Fanatic of Football's edit.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Regional_Centro&diff=prev&oldid=702338640
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalan_football_championship&diff=prev&oldid=702338746
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalan_football_championship&diff=prev&oldid=702338786 Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I've added four five IPs from a relatively small range, all geolocating to the same city in Romania. I know you're not allowed to associate IP addresses to named editors, but if a range block were feasible... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) worked on football competitions, e.g. at Copa de Campeones Juvenil de Fútbol, carrying on where Alexiulian left off, and requesting other users to help him improve similar articles, e.g. 1, 2.
 * 2) worked on football competitions, including converting stats tables in Coppa Italia to Alexiulian's preferred format.
 * 3) only edits were to request me at User talk:Struway2 to add content to related articles, that the anon apparently knew I was watching and interested in: I had reverted some of Alexiulian's work at Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and told him at User talk:Alexiulian25/Archive 3 that it was on my watchlist.
 * 4) only edits were to request editors to restore content that had been removed by User:GiantSnowman as unsourced: Alexiulian has a history of objecting to GiantSnowman's deletion of content, as at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive907.
 * 5) only edits were to request editors to add content to football competition related pages.
 * I agree, rangeblock seems necessary. I know you cannot disclose IPs, but to all editors who've encountered him before, it's a duck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs)


 * IPs can be associated with named user accounts by behavioural evidence, just not by checkuser evidence. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support a rangeblock if possible. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Rangeblock is not possible because of the size of this range. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reopening, five of the six are quite rangeblockable. Needs more investigation. Courcelles (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See below re range blocks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

03 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I to would support range blocking the 86.121.96.0/20 range. The IP's listed above from that range all appear to be sockpuppets of Alexiulian. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 3 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
I entirely support blocking not only the 86.121.96.0/20 range but the 2A02:2F05:F:FFFF::/64 range as well, based on the discussion in GiantSnowman's 2016 talk page archive. He clearly intends to abuse multiple IPs at his whim and I do not believe his self-declared intent to stop. Katietalk 18:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Range blocks imposed. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

23 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This users only edits have been changes to statistical tables previously maintained by Alexiulian25 until his block. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

against so are false accusations--Romania4football (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Quacking loud.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding self-confessed ducks:, , (all blocked by now)--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For (partial) completeness:, , . Favonian (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

24 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Despite an initial reaction to the contrary, I'm increasingly convinced that this editor is Alexiulian25. This account appears to have been registered to undo edits by. Alexiulian has done this previously with IP socks. See: and, to say nothing of the plethora of personal attacks from suspected Alexiulian socks posted to Eldumpo's talk page. Likewise, this editor's comments have certain textual idiosyncrasies indicative of Alexiulian's writing. Compare this and this to this (note the spacing around the punctuation marks.) Their knowledge of WP:ANI suggests that this is not a new user. (See: this and this) Like Alexiulian, this user also does not use the new section function on talk pages, choosing instead to edit the final section. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:28, 24 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
✅, blocked, tagged (see SPI above), closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

26 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Self confessed socks per comments like this Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I added obvious sock User:Justice for Alexiulian see his edits history and how much he contribute for Wikipedia. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Everyone is blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

29 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Obvious vandalism to pages related to previous socks. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   00:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

On the bright side, he appears to have the mental capacity of a brick, so his socks aren't going to be a chore to find. Half Shadow  01:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm actually inclined to think that it's not him. Their edits are clearly disruptive and they should be indeffed one way or the other. However, I think rather that this is a sock of, who is irritated that he's been accused of being a sockpuppet of Alexiulian. I'd be curious to know why User:Favonian thought that they were a sock, because I'm not seeing any evidence of that. Particularly their edits to articles on the British EU referendum, and their pattern of making single large edits rather than a string of smaller ones seem out of character for Alexiulian. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * CU requested to try to confirm (and to look for sleepers). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   01:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sir Sputnik.
 * No Bulgarian football articles.
 * No Italian football articles.
 * No Spanish football articles.
 * No reverts of edit that reverted content made by known Alexiulian socks.
 * Doesn't appear to have the same hit-list as Alexiulian. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I just clean up the messes I leave the deep thinking to those who have the tools. You're still dealing with socks; just maybe not who you think it is. Half Shadow  01:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not found by CU below, and  are both clearly socks of the same person, though given the usernames I doubt either of them are actually their first account. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also not listed below, is clearly also a sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and ❌ to Alexiulian25:
 * All of the accounts are already blocked. A clerk should create a new SPI with whichever account is the oldest.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the accounts are already blocked. A clerk should create a new SPI with whichever account is the oldest.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the accounts are already blocked. A clerk should create a new SPI with whichever account is the oldest.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

15 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The most striking evidence are the following two sentences taken from this editor's user page:


 * Use the long line " – " not the short line " - " or " / " when you edit !!
 * Why to use the long line " – " not the short line " - " or " / " when you edit ??

Note the space followed by a doubled punctuation mark at the end of each sentence. This is an usual quirk that shows up frequently in Alexiulian's writing. (See this for example). Additionally this editor has significant editing overlap with about 1 in 5 of their edits being to articles previously edited by Alexiulian. The overlap with is particularly striking, with this editor having reinstated most of the IP's edits. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:08, 15 May 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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

25 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This editor recreated articles on 1975 Cupa României Final and 1974 Cupa României Final, which Alexiulian socks have previously created three times. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:50, 25 May 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

 * Obvious WP:DUCK, account has been blocked and tagged. I defer to CheckUser administrators to determine if it would be worthwhile to check for additional sleepers.  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sleeper check unnecessary. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This interaction report (especially the relation to ) along with the types of edits made by the user indicate that the account may be related to this master. The account is currently blocked for lack of communication and addition of unverifiable content which is also similar behavior to this master. --  Dane <b style="color: #00AC1D;">talk </b> 04:06, 7 May 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

 * This definitely isn't Alexiulian. They were all too willing to communicate poorly when it suited them. Personal attacks are a big part of the reason that Alex is still blocked. Within the context of football, Alex also edited a significantly broader range of subjects than Islam84. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)