Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

More of the same, all stale. gnu 57 05:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Two ways: A134 often revives old no-edit sleepers: for instance,, which he started using earlier today, was created in April 2020. gnu 57 14:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking for accounts with very similar usernames to known A134 socks. For instance, (not blocked) matches  (sock).  (not blocked) matches, , , and  (socks). The Moist... usernames match a whole collection of known socks like , , , , , , , , , ....
 * Simply scrolling through the user creation log for the hour surrounding the creation of a known sock, looking for inappropriate compound-word usernames with scrambled letters (LikTehis=LikeThis).

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

could you request global locks for the socks?  Java Hurricane  16:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I've done the work.  Java Hurricane  16:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * None of these accounts have any contributions. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - before this gets consigned to the dustbin of history, I gotta ask: how did you come up with this list of 56 accounts that have never edited, and what made you think they're Architect socks? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm confident that these are A134 socks, due to both the naming patterns and the timing. These socks are revived on a regular basis (and subsequently confirmed to A134). Genericusername57's method is a reliable one. All should be blocked, and for their username alone. If no one gets there before me, I'll do it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocking everybody sans tags per Genericusername57 and zzuuzz. And, Genericusername57 you deserve some kind of barnstar for subjecting yourself to this sort of abuse for an hour.  Please spend the rest of your day doing something more enjoyable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Failed to block StiknySmegterd: nosuchuser". I assume there was some typo there.  I'm going to (re) close this, but if you figure out what it was supposed to be, ping me and I'll be happy to take care of it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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

Logging for the record, likely another LTA/sockmaster but unaware currently. Edits at Wikipedia is not therapy ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * User:Donald pack made this same JPL sockpuppet category last year and they were a sockpuppet. They are stale so I'm not sure how much that would help. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The joe-jobbing to stir up drama and the juvenile redirect creations remind me of Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134. Cheers, gnu 57 00:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is ✅ to ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - any of y'all know who this might be? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We can add and  to this batch. I'd go with Genericusername57's guess. There's a few things saying this is probably A134, even though some of the footprint is different. To give one example, Brownugget's date of creation is very close to (or probably the same as) some recently reported A134 socks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I've merged with the A134 case. I'll leave the tags as they are per DENY. Closing  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Vetocrux is an Architect 134 sleeper sock. I spotted it back in January then forgot about it. Now the account is behaving the same way as the most recent batch of blocked socks.

Typicalneurotypical, Sfincturd, and Functer are other obvious throwaway socks of his. (Sfincturd was spamming "thanks" notifications a few weeks ago.) gnu 57 18:26, 5 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
Yes, that's them. A couple of extra accounts can be found in my blocking log. . -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * User:Architect 134 is the guy with the vulgar usernames who taunts unsuccessful RfA candidates. gnu 57 03:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Filing for posterity, all ✅. Pretty sure its some LTA, but idk whom. If a clerk has more clue than I do, they're welcome to do the paperwork to put this SPI in the right place :) CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to close this. After 3 days, nobody has figured out which LTA drawer to file this in, and it's not really critical.  I copied some data into cuwiki so we can spot this guy when he resurfaces. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is indeed Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134 or an impersonator. I'll merge and remove the tags. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - Based on the CU data I can see, Chinicker does indeed match Architect 134. But, before this gets archived,  it sounds like you're familiar with this case, so could you also take a look at   They're already blocked for other reasons, but I see they're a good match for Chinicker, so perhaps need to be tagged as such? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Or, if we're not tagging, at least let me know if they check out so I can properly curate the cuwiki data. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith yeah, they all look consistent, including Mannuknot. I recommend leaving them untagged. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The SandDoctor Talk 05:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Already CU-blocked some of them; others are blocked otherwise. Two of them were attempted accounts. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2022 (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

 * Noting also my block of, now locked along with several other accounts. mind getting these too? Thanks. Closing.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 01:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Locked, no sleepers afaict. Expecting almond delivery promptly. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Pro-forma. Case split from Sockpuppet investigations/Мадина Омарова and relevant CU / Admin comments copied from there. Jack Frost (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2022 (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
As a second group, are all ✅ to each other, but ostensibly ❌ to the first group. Our proxy detection tools are drawing a blank on the IPv6 /128 they're all using. My inclination would be to assume our proxy tools are just not perfect. A couple of other random thoughts, however. One is that it's less common to see proxies on IPv6 than on v4. The other is that this geolocates to a city which is not someplace you would expect to see people using the Cyrillic alphabet. I'll leave the blocking and tagging to you. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Well, the usernames (one of which includes a direct transliteration of the n-word) are pretty bad and grounds for a block on their own. the lot, don't think there's a point in tagging the original Omarova group either. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my comment about "not someplace you would expect cyrillic" only applies to that last group of 6 accounts on a /128. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith: Does the technical data for group two happen to be consistent with ? --Blablubbs (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good call. On the raw CU data, I'd call that /128 group  to  and  (given the passage of time, as close to ✅ as can be expected).  And  to, who I see was CU-blocked at the same time as Kiowabole.  None of these were tagged as A134 socks, but there's some data in cuwiki which suggests those accounts were looked at during a CU run for that case. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Split from Sockpuppet investigations/Мадина Омарова and the above relevant comments copied from there. . looking at the archive. Closing. --Jack Frost (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This would seem to fit the pattern of some of the more persistent A134 socks (e.g. ): sleeper-ish tendencies and a strong interest in counter-vandalism, CSD, AfD, etc. More importantly, there's a lot of the subtle trolling that typifies this LTA: creating Featured articles gain greater online traction (look at the acronym) is one example, and the stuff discussed at the bottom of Shawn Teller's talk page is another. There's also a similarity with a number of previous accounts that I'd prefer not to discuss publicly for BEANS reasons (happy to email if anyone's curious). I think there's at least enough here to run a check—there should be data on cu-wiki to compare with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2023 (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

 * ✅, along with a few others that I'm not going to bother listing. Blocked, locks requested, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
A134 has been stirring up drama in the gender topic area lately. (See, , and ). He created this sleeper sock in 2021, resurrected it yesterday, ran through TWA to get autoconfirmed, then started trolling at Woman. I am requesting Checkuser to look for more sleeper accounts. gnu 57 02:50, 7 July 2023 (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

 * ✅ and blocked. .-- Ponyo bons mots 16:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Another obvious sock, just like the last one. gnu 57 02:48, 8 July 2023 (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

 * Yep, that's Architect – Courcelles beat me to the block. I did block another 100 or so yesterday, and another one just now, but they're hardly worth listing. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
The Nov. 2021 registration date matches that of previous socks, as does the trolling-adjacent behavior in the GENSEX area (see Administrators' noticeboard and elsewhere (Draft:Amerauseurasica; Commons; sandbox history). Happy to go into more detail if necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

From my involvement in that noticeboard drama, my impression was that she was far more trolled than trolling. I'd be surprised if the accounts are connected. There is the overlap in subject areas but the blatant trolling of, say, Mistyjee is absent here. I guess the checkuser will reveal the truth. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Architect 134 socks come in several flavors. Most are just throwaways, but a few (Shawn Teller was a recent one) troll in a somewhat less obvious manner. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I don't think this is A134. The technical data is a bit weirdly ambiguous, as us checkusers like to say, but it's not something A134 generally looks like, so I'm going to say it's technically unlikely to be A134. I'll ping in case they want to take a look. If there is further evidence, now would be a good time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree this doesn't look like Architect; they'd have to be a fairly unusual outlier both technically and behaviourally. I'll leave this open for now in case there are further comments, but I'd recommend closing without action. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Something just feels off here to me, but obviously that's not enough evidence to block over. Closing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

No thanks, I have about 1500 sleeper accounts. I’ll just use one of them and a new IP. Buckrune (talk) 2:02 pm, Today (UTC−4) Valereee (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

probably this NSFW post is another sock.

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

 * These are both Architect 134, as are some others that aren't worth listing. Case merged, accounts blocked. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lord Togneme now also blocked on Commons, which should be all that's needed for now. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Adding "dastardly" to character descriptions    . Changing "built" to "erected"      . Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2023 (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 is Architect 134. Looks like someone already checked. Merging case and closing. Spicy (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( originally filed under this user)

The only edit by this account should justify it. I was quite pissed at how egregious the accusation was. I don’t know a master so I put it here. I’m on an iPhone so making a report was difficult. Noah, AATalk 02:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * also on phone but here's another similar diff. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:58, 24 March 2024 (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

 * Behaviourally, seems like the same.  This may be Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134. A check of Boggmar's range threw up some of their socks from last month and it seems to fit their habit around RfA, as well as some technical clues. I couldn't find any unblocked sleepers. If that seems reasonable, please merge to that SPI. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Spicy (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Idk. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * is similar. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:57, 24 March 2024 (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 a few days ago; no need for tags. Closing case. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

Both are giving dangerously wrong/trollish responses at the Teahouse as new users: Pinchedloaf Kojavak. Curious that Pinchedloaf showed up 6 months to the day after Kojavak last edited. Kojavak is likely stale, but in case someone did run a check and left some clues in the CU log I'm still requesting a check. A check on the new account may still be justified because it seems like this user made extra sure that their CU data would be deleted. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * who put the sock under a CU block for a more recent master.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * I also sent an email to WP:RFO reporting by, where they advised a new TeaHouse editor "To accurately answer your question, we would first need your full legal name and address of current residence, and employer’s contact information. It is also recommended that you disclose your IP address for security purposes."--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Kojavak has been inactive long enough to be . CheckUser tools won't tell us anything useful here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is Architect 134. Merged, closing. Spicy (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The SandDoctor Talk 04:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)