Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aximilli Isthill/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Users are promotion-only accounts (with the exception of Nidayue, who is mostly promotion only, but has done a little page curation) adding the same WP:REFSPAM to articles, including shopchimney.com and fundraisingscript.com. Editing the same topic Nancy Marie Mangano/Nancy Mangano (Articles for deletion/Nancy Mangano). I realize ChimChimney is stale and can't be checkusered, but I'm including it here becaues of the same behavior - only spamming shopchimney.com. Deli nk (talk) 12:58, 5 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
The only accounts that are not are the master and Mikesmith01.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear as to why a CU check is being requested here., do you have some specific goal in mind which a CU could help with?  If this case can be handled through behavioural evidence (DUCK test), then we might as well do it that way and dispense with CU.  Please advise.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The behavioral evidence suggests a connection between these users, but a checkuser will likely give a more definitive answer (for those that are not stale - I didn't realize that 3.5 months is enough to become stale). To me, this appears to be the kind of situation where checkuser is helpful and routinely used.  Deli nk (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * - PLease, compare Aximilli Isthill and Mikesmith01.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * and are ✅ to each other. Note that  is also ✅ from blocked account, so a quick behavioural check should be made to see if the Perna account should be rolled into this SPI as well.  also popped up in the check, is  related, and looks pretty spammy, so please take a look at it from a behavioural standpoint as well.  -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The two confirmed socks should be blocked as such. AnthonyPerna is definitely the same, since the behavior is identical from the other sock: moving a page and then rewriting it with promotional content. They also both made two edits on May 21, 2013, then went silent for years. I advise they be incorporated into this SPI, too. Wchai561 is going about the similar category-adding, linking, and external-linking. Note also the connections to South(east) Asia. I would still like another opinion on Wchai561, however. GABgab 22:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've blocked Mikesmith01 and AnthonyPerna as confirmed socks of Aximilli Isthill. I've blocked MichellSoriano and Nidayue (who are clearly the same editor) as well as Wchai561 as suspected socks of Aximilli Isthill. I blocked ChimChimney as a blatant spam account. All have been tagged where necessary. Closing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)