Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova/Archive

04 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Lovelyusa is a brand new editor who from its first edit knew how to correctly edit tables. From that point, he had a remarkable taste for article worked on by Yuliaalipova, managing to edit 20 the same articles is less than 50 edits. That could have been a strange coincidence, but removing an AfD-template from an article created by Yuliaalipova set off the alarm-bells.

In his short career, Lovelyusa has already collected multiple warnings for disruptive editing and removing AfD or maintenance templates on his talkpage. Yuliaalipova has the same type of warnings on her talkpage. With Yuliaalipova blocked for disruptive editing, this looks like a case of sockpuppetry and block evasion to me. The Banner talk 23:31, 4 November 2015 (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 three accounts are ✅. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

24 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Began editing shortly after was blocked for sock puppetry. Torrie1975 has a direct focus on beauty competition articles. They have edited many articles which were created by Colombiabeauty including Miss USA 2016‎ and Miss Teen USA 2016 -- and even more obscure articles like Miss Earth Angola or Hilda Akua. Likewise the editor never response to notices on their talk page and superficially the warnings are essentially the same laundry list of deletion notices Mkdw talk 20:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding after I noticed they also edited Miss Earth Angola. I recommend a check for sleepers also be done considering this editor's past.  Mkdw talk 20:41, 24 December 2015 (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

 * ✅,, En1206 is ❌. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * tagged and blocked indef per CU findings, closing case now. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

04 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Found while conducting another investigation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:43, 4 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

 * ✅ match to several blocked socks from the archived cases. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

20 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Many SPAs are continuing edits consistent with, to wit, all-at-once beauty pageant contestant article creation including Infobox pageant titleholder and Beauty Pageant. Subjects are often southeast Asians/Indonesians/Philipinas. More discussion of this beauty pageant sockfarm (or farms) is found at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 94 with input from reliable editors and  as well as the editor filing this report,. It is suspected based on that conversation that this is the work of a Indonesian PR firm who extensively use throwaway accounts and rotating IPs in the 93.110.x.x range. Note that scattered IPs from this range are extensively editing beauty pageant articles this year [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/?project=en.wikipedia.org&text=93.110.1.1%2F16&begin=2015-10-01&end=&namespace=all&limit=20 93.110.x.x contribs], up to and including this edit a few days ago. This is an Iranian ISP whose edits are almost exclusively devoted to Miss Earth USA, Miss World, etc.

Representative diffs:
 * Colombiabeauty: created Laura Garcete in one fell swoop with Infobox pageant titleholder, sections Early life, Pageantry, blank References and External links pointing to her personal website
 * En1206: created Phạm Hương nearly identical fashion, same template, same section titles
 * AnnLivinova: created Pimbongkod Chankaew ditto
 * Volbeat1: created Andrea Kalousová from scratch with same infobox, same Pageantry section title
 * Kutnahora: created Janela Joy Cuaton ditto,

Please note that the following CU-confirmed socks of Colombiabeauty had exactly the same behavior:
 * same all-at-once creation, same template, same section titles
 * ditto

Submitted for consideration – Brianhe (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added another pageant SPA whose edits appear to be just as described above e.g., plus seems to coordinate with Vidatafazoli who was just added to the case through a separate line of reasoning. There is also editing on articles frequented by another sockmaster Sockpuppet investigations/Yuliaalipova like this. Brianhe (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

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

I like to add user:Vidatafazoli to the list of suspected sockpuppets. Reason for this is that he repeatedly re-added information that first was added by the blocked sockpuppet user:User:Amgood1993. Info that was removed by others. For example on Template:Miss Paraguay where Amgood1993 added] a red link to the 2016 version. This was reverted Ponyo but re-added by Vidatafazoli, still as a red link. According to the intersection tool Amgood1996 and Vidatafazoli shared an effort on 62 articles. He also fits in the pattern of disruptive editing and total lack of communication. (See: User talk:Vidatafazoli). The Banner talk 09:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional: Vidatafazoli added multiple fake links to Template:Miss Universe 2016 delegates. Here does the suspected Henry Rojas Pacheco the same. The Banner talk 07:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I think there's enough here to request CU to check for sleepers and possibly block the underlying IPs. Some of these have thousands of edits and the patterns are too close to ignore. Katietalk 02:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * . Because so much is clearly stale here, I'm not sure how much a CU can do. However, there may still be a chance of finding sleepers, and/or connecting some of the alleged socks to each other (even if it's not possible to connect them to the master), so I'm going to endorse this one just in case.  If it turns out the CU's can't help out after all, then so be it, but I think they should at least take a look.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are :
 * En1206 was previously found to be ❌.
 * Group 1 – the following accounts are to each other and ❌ to the master:
 * Group 2 – the following accounts are ❌ to each other, the master, and any other accounts:
 * Group 3 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other and ✅ to the master:
 * Blocked and tagged Vidatafazoli.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Two confirmed account are already blocked and tagged. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to reopen this so I can look into this more behaviorally? Some of the evidence seems compelling. I might well find no behavioral link, but unless you've already done a full behavioral investigation, I'd like the chance to have a deeper look. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are a clerk, you don't need me to change the case status.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * for further behavioral investigation. It seemed impolite to without checking with you first. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now spent over six and a half hours looking at this. Here are my conclusions:
 * I'm finding the biography-creation evidence particularly convincing. To restate, the following accounts have created bios on pageant titleholders, which, on the first edit, have Infobox pageant titleholder, the sections "Early life" or "Personal life", "Pageantry" with subsections describing pageants attended (sometimes without main section level-2 header, but still with subsectioning), a (sometimes-blank, absolute showing adherence to structure) "References" section, and an "External links" section that links only to the pageant's website:
 * AnnLivinova: Pimbongkod Chankaew on first edit, Waratthaya Wongchayaporn on first edit
 * Tenkingdoms: Stephania Stegman on first edit, Mikaela Fotiadis on first edit, Anis Christine Pitty Yaya on first edit, Idubina Rivas on first edit
 * Volbeat1: Andrea Kalousová on first edit, Diana Jaén on first edit, on first edit
 * Kutnahora: Christi McGarry on first edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janela_Joy_Cuaton&oldid=685866080 Janela Joy Cuaton on first edit]
 * Henry Rojas Pacheco: Joanna Cooper on first edit (the only bio creation from this account)
 * (Jonathan121501 and BeautyQueen327 will be discussed below.)
 * This pattern lines up very closely with Colombiabeauty and known previous socks. E.g., Colombiabeauty itself: Laura Garcete on first edit; Yuliaalipova: Hillarie Parungao on first edit; Evenewyear: Wendolly Esparza on first edit
 * Although those may seem like a set of cherry-picked examples, I've flipped through where the pageant-titleholder infobox is used, and very few of them (that weren't created by the suspected puppets) contained those exact sections and, crucially, the infobox, all on the first edit.
 * All seven unblocked accused accounts have made less than 2% of edits in any talk namespace (talk, user talk, template talk, etc.):      . Yet, they coordinate extraordinarily well and edit articles created by other suspected/confirmed socks without a word being discussed. See generally the editor compare report. Examples:
 * Binibining Pilipinas 2016, history around February 2016. The easiest one to see is Kutnahora and Jonathan121501 on 24 Feb 2016, 05:23-05:28, Kutnahora makes a string of edits. When Jonathan starts editing a few minutes later at 06:14 and continues a string of edits until 07:03. Kutnahora comes back at 13:52 and continues a string of edits. In this process, over 25 edits are made, without a single edit conflict noted, indeed with no talk page conversation at all, or even any edit summaries (which I'll discuss in a moment).
 * It's a little harder to find definitive evidence for BeautyQueen327 because of the low number of distinct pages edited (6). However, fully five of those pages were also edited by other suspected socks, some in quite heavy detail. See, Ctrl-F “BeautyQueen327”.
 * I'm also seeing more circumstantial evidence. AnnLivinova, Tenkingdoms, Jonathan121501, and Volbeat1, the four unblocked suspected accounts with the most edits, all have average edit times within 65 minutes of each other, with the farthest ones being Kutnahora (9:52) to AnnLivinova (8:49). In addition, all suspected accounts use non-default edit summaries extraordinarily infrequently, and tend to make many (frequently >10) edits in quick succession.
 * Based on the above, I currently have a firm and definite conviction all the accounts listed are connected. I am thus inclined to request indefinite sock-blocks for all seven currently-unblocked accounts, notwithstanding the CU negative results (which I suspect may be due to the scarcity of recent edits) . Of the unblocked accounts, I am the least certain about BeautyQueen327, but its close fit with the other more circumstantial patterns described above convince me. (I have not evaluated connections to En1206, as that account has already been blocked indefinitely separately from SPI.) I do note that I see no rebuttal of any evidence here by any of the suspected socks, despite being notified and this SPI being open for a good month and a half, and despite AnnLivinova, Tenkingdoms, Jonathan121501, Kutnahora, and Henry Rojas Pacheco having edited since then. I am still a little confused that the CU came up with such negative results. (Perhaps these are meatpuppets who edit as directed by the master?) Given the old age of the suspected accounts (AnnLivinova is the oldest and the investigation will be retitled to that account) I will leave this on hold for 2-3 days for any final statements before formally requesting admin action. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're certainly entitled to analyze the behavior of the accounts as you see fit, but your inferences as to the technical findings are misguided.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was merely speculating. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it sounded to me that you were discounting the technical findings based on your speculation, e.g., "scarcity of recent edits". That particular speculation is difficult to reconcile with some of the findings that found that not only were accounts unrelated to the master but also unrelated to each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Yes, I'm very mindful of the CU findings and the weight they are accorded, and thanks for your correction. I'll retract that speculation; it wasn't important. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All seven unblocked accused accounts have made less than 2% of edits in any talk namespace (talk, user talk, template talk, etc.):      . Yet, they coordinate extraordinarily well and edit articles created by other suspected/confirmed socks without a word being discussed. See generally the editor compare report. Examples:
 * Binibining Pilipinas 2016, history around February 2016. The easiest one to see is Kutnahora and Jonathan121501 on 24 Feb 2016, 05:23-05:28, Kutnahora makes a string of edits. When Jonathan starts editing a few minutes later at 06:14 and continues a string of edits until 07:03. Kutnahora comes back at 13:52 and continues a string of edits. In this process, over 25 edits are made, without a single edit conflict noted, indeed with no talk page conversation at all, or even any edit summaries (which I'll discuss in a moment).
 * It's a little harder to find definitive evidence for BeautyQueen327 because of the low number of distinct pages edited (6). However, fully five of those pages were also edited by other suspected socks, some in quite heavy detail. See, Ctrl-F “BeautyQueen327”.
 * I'm also seeing more circumstantial evidence. AnnLivinova, Tenkingdoms, Jonathan121501, and Volbeat1, the four unblocked suspected accounts with the most edits, all have average edit times within 65 minutes of each other, with the farthest ones being Kutnahora (9:52) to AnnLivinova (8:49). In addition, all suspected accounts use non-default edit summaries extraordinarily infrequently, and tend to make many (frequently >10) edits in quick succession.
 * Based on the above, I currently have a firm and definite conviction all the accounts listed are connected. I am thus inclined to request indefinite sock-blocks for all seven currently-unblocked accounts, notwithstanding the CU negative results (which I suspect may be due to the scarcity of recent edits) . Of the unblocked accounts, I am the least certain about BeautyQueen327, but its close fit with the other more circumstantial patterns described above convince me. (I have not evaluated connections to En1206, as that account has already been blocked indefinitely separately from SPI.) I do note that I see no rebuttal of any evidence here by any of the suspected socks, despite being notified and this SPI being open for a good month and a half, and despite AnnLivinova, Tenkingdoms, Jonathan121501, Kutnahora, and Henry Rojas Pacheco having edited since then. I am still a little confused that the CU came up with such negative results. (Perhaps these are meatpuppets who edit as directed by the master?) Given the old age of the suspected accounts (AnnLivinova is the oldest and the investigation will be retitled to that account) I will leave this on hold for 2-3 days for any final statements before formally requesting admin action. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're certainly entitled to analyze the behavior of the accounts as you see fit, but your inferences as to the technical findings are misguided.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was merely speculating. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it sounded to me that you were discounting the technical findings based on your speculation, e.g., "scarcity of recent edits". That particular speculation is difficult to reconcile with some of the findings that found that not only were accounts unrelated to the master but also unrelated to each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Yes, I'm very mindful of the CU findings and the weight they are accorded, and thanks for your correction. I'll retract that speculation; it wasn't important. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Admin action needed - Pursuant to the above, and no objection to the analysis nor statement by the accused editors having been made, please indefinitely block AnnLivinova, Tenkingdoms, Jonathan121501, BeautyQueen327, Kutnahora, and Henry Rojas Pacheco. I can handle tagging and moving the investigation to the new master (AnnLivinova). Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nakon 04:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Moved to AnnLivinova. Tagging AnnLivinova as blocked master, behavioral socks as suspected-blocked, and retagging older socks as CU-confirmed to AnnLivinova. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like Volbeat1 was missed also? Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Volbeat1 wasn't included in your previous comment. I can block the user if needed. Thanks,  Nakon  04:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Er. Oops. That does appear to be my fault, my apologies. Please block. Thanks! Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * has been blocked. Thanks,  Nakon  04:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Hi there, this editor has been causing a headache. Multiple BLP issues and other disruptive editing. Like some of the other socks, s/he seems centered on international beauty competitions but tends to edit articles from all regions of the world. However, CyberBrinda seems to have an Indian focus.created an Indian model's article
 * Femina Miss India is a huge area of intersection with AnnLivinoa socks like Tenkingdoms, Vidatafazoli, Valentinaitaly and so forth. CyberBrinda made over 65 edits recently.
 * At Femina Miss India there are other similar accounts around the same time frame: ' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arinkit_Das contribs]) and ' (contribs) stick out, as they too seem obsessed with pageantry. Although Arinkit Das was created in 2013. Hodarohani, however, was created 20 August 2016 but seems to have had no problem diving into article creation that day.
 * There is significant overlap between CyberBrinda and three recent AnnLivinova socks.
 * CyberBrinda account was created about a week after the last SPI was resolved. She too was an early bloomer who jumped right into article creation.
 * I've dropped a ton of notices and warning templates on her talk page, but she's never bothered to respond. This is consistent with a note from Mkdw, who noted the same thing about Torrie1975.

I'm not sure how the CU request will play out, what with the master being stale, but are there links to the more recent suspected socks? Any other accounts that need discovering? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: I'm not sure what to make of this, but a brand new user,, just flagged CyberBrinda's account as a suspected sock of AnnLivinova. Also, good-egg contributor The Banner dropped Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive on my talk page in response to this SPI, but I'm not sure exactly how to make use of it. , do you think this is a better sockmaster candidate, or...? I don't know much about these fashion sock rings. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:01, 10 September 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 as all the socks in the archives are. Indeed, I don't really understand the explanation behind the CU request.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - The purpose of the CU request would be to link this actor with some of the other suspected socks in the archive. Is everything stale? Can no connection be made to any of them? Maybe I'm confused about procedure--if we have an LTA who continues their disruption after the CU data has presumably gone stale, should we no longer try to link suspected socks to that master? That doesn't seem consistent with the years of SPIs I've participated in. If the preference is that we start looking for other current accounts and get CU attention that way, that's fine, but then editors should know not to reopen old cases for CU consideration. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing unusual about this case and I'm surprised you think there is. Yes, all the accounts are stale. As always, I didn't look to see if some account that was blocked posted messages to their Talk page later on making them non-stale. I never do that. It's way too much work for very little payback. I wish there were a way in the interface to know that but I'm unaware of any automated method of doing it. So, that leaves us with only the checkuser logs. One would have to be careful because the archive history demonstrates that technical findings were severely discounted, meaning you wouldn't want to go back any further than the check of Ann if you're trying to establish a connection between the new account and her. In any event, I'd rather let a clerk look at this behaviorally and decide whether to endorse a check, understanding there are limitations as to how much we will be able to see.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

the account was already indeffed for personal attacks. Comparing this account to 's extensive analysis in the previous case, I find that this account is not related. However, there appear to be several other accounts active in the area which do match behaviourally; I will file a new case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

In a previous case, did an extensive analysis of this sockfarm's characteristic behaviour. Like many previous socks, these accounts' page creations are heavily composed of beauty pageant contestants in which the very first edit contains an identical structure. Compare these page creations with Kevin's conclusions:


 * BeautyQueen20132013:
 * Hodarohani:

Not to mention the username similarity to previous sock, and also that BQ2013 completely stopped editing after receiving many warnings about unsourced edits, after which HR was created and also has a talk page full of warnings about unsourced edits. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:14, 15 October 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

 * although the previous checkuser run conflicted with the behavioural analysis and all older accounts are stale, please compare these two accounts with each other, and have a look for sleepers if possible. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The two accounts are to each other and to the master. I would rely more on the behavioral evidence than the technical.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * please block both accounts; the behavioural evidence is strong and the technical data backs it up enough for my satisfaction. This feels like it might be promotional meatpuppetry, but there's little difference as far as policy is concerned. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as closed. Mkdw talk 23:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Looks like another one of the beauty pageant socks is back. Wgolf (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I didn't notice they joined in 2014-was finding the name on the pageant articles that were getting the db-banned tag along with those who have been banned before. Wgolf (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to look more into this right now (Unless if someone else does), there does seem to be a high amount of those articles edited by this user and not other ones though. Wgolf (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Random note: The suspected sock appears to have lifted his user page from 's. I've no information to suggest they're related. Just interesting and random. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
You're going to need to provide some evidence, particularly given the age of SudeKiray.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * and closing. No evidence has been given despite Bbb23's request, other than vague statements like "a high amount of articles edited by this user and not other ones" and that's not good enough for an investigation. Nevertheless I did compare this account with some of the key behaviours noted in the archive, and while there may be indicators that this is a sockpuppet account of someone, that evidence in and of itself is quite weak (plausibly a new user) and I see no particular reason to believe that it's a sockpuppet of this case. The request feels like fishing to me.
 * when you file sockpuppet investigation requests, you must provide specific evidence in the form of diffs which compare the behaviour of the account you want to investigate versus the behaviour of the sockmaster or its other proven sockpuppets. For example: past sock Hodarohani made this edit which is similar to this edit made by AnnLivinova, and both edits have a style which is fairly unique to this case. If you have evidence to file another report but need help with compiling diffs, please contact myself or any of the clerks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I'm listing Medianadia for comparison purposes as it was a recent sock identified as belonging to the AnnLivinova sock farm. Observations:
 * Special:Contributions/Kaokla: Mostly gnomish edits & active only in July and December of 2017, which is an odd editing pattern. With this edit, Kaokla added a link to Christina Peiris. The article has been recently speedy deleted, so I cannot see who created it. I'm sure it was part of the recent sock farm, possibly those blocked at Sockpuppet_investigations/Dyhp612/Archive (that's where Medianadia was connected to a sock farm).
 * Special:Contributions/Hearmesir: Gnomish edits across various international pageants. Active from June 2017. Has recreated one article, which has now been deleted twice, via PROD and A7: Miss Face Czech Republic. Fist version was deleted in March before this account was active.
 * Special:Contributions/Jourdan_Ann: An older account established in 2016. Has been recently active creating articles on pageant winners who plan to participate in the 2018 pageants -- same MO as Medianadia (Articles by Medianadia). Has created 34 articles of which 1/3 has already been deleted: Articles created by Jourdan Ann.
 * Special:Contributions/Hpcidaniello & Special:Contributions/JamesBolivar show a similar pattern of article creation as Medianadia: a combination of contestants and nn pageants. Articles by Hcp and JamesBolivar. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 15 January 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

 * Three of the users come back ❌ to each other. Satisfied to leave it there. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the CU evidence, I'm going to close this with no action. I'm not seeing the particularly characteristic behaviors of this sockfarm, and it was last active in late 2016. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)