Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaghan Muawiyah/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The only edits by this account have been submitting a longer draft about William Bishop that is an expansion of Draft:William Bishop (musician), which is the work of a blocked paid editor and their blocked sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 15 November 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

 * - for training -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - Draft:William Bishop was deleted in February 2021 and October 2020. Please compare the current version of the article to the deleted version; an indication of the similarity would be useful. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - the current Draft:William Bishop is not similar to either deleted versions, and both deleted versions are also significantly different. For reference, the deleted version(s) were created by  ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 05:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , self-endorse ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 05:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * is ✅ to ∴ to .  ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 05:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing left to do. Closing. --Jack Frost (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
see repeated attempts to add William Bishop (as seen here by the master and previous socks) as well as similar naming to past socks like this one CUPIDICAE💕  17:03, 16 March 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

 * Seems obvious enough to me given their only substantive edits are to insert the same musician into a list as other socks have done. firefly  ( t · c ) 17:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Like Felix Nolan, TomMorgan12 and Mehreen Khan 13, this editor has a primary focus on trying to get a main space article and mentions for musician William Bishop. Only now, he is called a musician and "academic". If we protected all of the different pages in main space and Draft space that have been used for articles about this person, we'd cover 7 or 8 pages. There have been many attemps and many deleted pages over the past two years as folks have tried to compose articles on this fellow.

But unlike other sockpuppets whose sole focus was on Bishop, JohnEricHiggs has also edited articles on other subjects so this might be a paid editing gig, not sockpuppetry. Still, I thought I'd report this suspicion and from now on, I'll keep my eye out for future articles on Bishop. Their efforts do seem to be improving in quality over the years since their ealiest attempts. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I concur, this look like WP:DUCK. I've also added an IP with the same MO. JohnEricHiggs and the IP are still active, so it would be nice if the both of them be promptly blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Could we also tag, whom was already blocked by ? Their behaviour fits the pattern of these socks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could talk page access be revoked as well to stop the trolling. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The following two accounts are ✅ to each other and blocked under this case: Can a clerk tag as needed? No comment on the IPs but another admin might judge if IP blocks are justified on behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * and
 * Tagged, closing. IP hasn't edited in a few days, feel free to re-report if it returns to activity. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Re-reporting per the closing comment in the previous report. The IP was not blocked then as it had been a couple of days since it had been used. Today, the IP has made a couple of edits asking for the William Bishop article to be restored. ,. bonadea contributions talk 12:47, 9 October 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

 * IP blocked for 2 months as a sock of JohnEricHiggs. Closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
New account re-creating Draft:William John Titus Bishop in their first edit, and almost all their subsequent edits have been to that draft. bonadea contributions talk 11:55, 25 November 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
Quack, quack. Blocked as an obvious sock based on behavior, though I'll leave the checkuser request in case anyone wants to check for sleepers. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No sleepers. Closing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Though Topg1985 has been indef blocked for disruptive editing, their edits on Draft:William John Titus Bishop link them to this SPI and the salted Draft:William Bishop. I believe they're the same person and they may have sleeper accounts. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 27 April 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

 * ✅ Unambiguous. No sleepers found. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 13:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)