Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biantez/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Noticed strange deletion tagging on GRES Mocidade de Vicente de Carvalho by these users:, in addition, both refuse to communicate or use edit summaries, aside from HotCat's automatic summaries. Toveco has shown interest in low-traffic articles created by the master. The complete Editor Interaction Analyser seemed to confirm my suspicions. Sro23 (talk) 21:29, 30 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

 * - WP:DUCK, please indef the sock. I'm just now noticing there appears to be cross-wiki disruption between these accounts as well. Sro23 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sro23 - ✅.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I requested a global lock. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Similar usernames to Biantez. Bianteco became active in January 2018 after the account was blocked. There was a little bit of activity on Bianteco before then and they seem to switch between accounts, so I'd like to see if there are sleepers. The main interests are Brazilian football and Carnival, especially creating pointless redirects for specific Samba schools(?) to Rio Carnival (eg: União do Parque Acari (Bianteco) vs. União do Parque Curicica (Biantez)). They are interested in maintaining the Rio Carnival results (see, for example, the history of Results of the 2013 Rio Carnival) and are familiar with how categories work. All three accounts have worked on Template:Carnaval do Rio de Janeiro. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:26, 14 May 2019 (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 case is. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was afraid it would be stale, thanks for looking into it Bbb23. I've per WP:DUCK so I can begin on the cleanup. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing. Sro23 (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

beyond any doubt as per what I've seen on Wikidata. Requesting a sleeper check and a block (and lock) of the sock here too. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Clear behavioral evidence, on which I based my check, can be found at d:Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Biantez. I’m just requesting a continuation of my investigation to other wikis.—Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 18 June 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

 * What's the evidence, though? I can't run a check because you say that they're "confirmed". I need to know exactly what evidence you have, with diffs, that show that these accounts are controlled by the same person.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Years ago I asked for a global lock of Biantez and all sockpuppets for cross-wiki abuse and was told no . If you want to argue with the stewards, it's up to you. Sro23 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this one is locked, which would mean that the others are probably eligible for locks as well. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 20:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . The master and all socks are and have no CU log data that I can use for comparison. A check won't produce any results.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   20:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lacareco is already glocked, so nothing left to do here. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)