Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boskit190/Archive

06 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Boskit190, formerly known as Hilumeoka2000, was an undisclosed paid editor with a Freelancer.com account named "Hilumeoka2000". He came clean with this edit.

Boskit190 "retired" with his last edit on 20 June 2015
 * Time-related evidence

Xandyxyz started editing a few days later on 9 July 2015

One of Boskit190's creations was Draft:Pakistan_Green_Building_Council, the deletion of which was noted here by
 * Article-creation evidence

Xandyxyz recreated Pakistan Green Building Council, the deletion of which was noted here.

has noted off-wiki evidence relating the Wikipedia user Xandyxyz to the Freelancer.com account Hilumeoka2000 — Brianhe (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Further off-wiki evidence


 * Other common interests in uncommon commercial articles
 * Michigan Auto Law (Law firm) has exactly two editors, Keke1970 who created it in his first edit, and Xandyxyz
 * Wastren Advantage, Inc was created in one edit by Alabasunt in his very first edit, then shortly thereafter moved to a new title by Xandyxyz
 * Vedas (Indian Restaurant) had exactly two editors (before me) Rosemaryujoh who created it first and Xandyxyz who edited a few hours later --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I'm inclined to block Boskit190 for ToS violations and Xandyxyz for the same in addition to being a sock; behavioral analysis -- and  for example but also some posts on freelancer. Also, I doubt Xandyxyz is the only account in use right now, the COIN post lists a few others, I think  or  may want to add them so that a CU sweep can be done. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Lemongirl942 just alerted me to this conversation on Bbb23's talk page (via a post at WT:COIN), perhaps has better context? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , fair enough. I think the behavioral evidence links Xandyxyz to Boskit190 as the successor "managing account". The rest are all connected via the individual articles which seems to be the way the ring operates. I think has compiled some off wiki evidence (I haven't seen it), I've just seen the freelancer posts via the COIN discussion and the linguistic tells from contribution history. If you wish for that I think she may be able to send that to you? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The off-wiki evidence unfortunately is limited to a couple of freelancer.com links which prove paid editing at Vedas (Indian Restaurant) and ER24 Emergency Medical Services. It helps to confirm that Boskit190 is editing from Xandyxyz, but nothing more at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * God, that stuff with the gallery brings back nothing but bad memories. Most of the accounts I dealt with were focused only on Galerie Gmurzynska, which hasn't been edited since December 2015, whereas the allegations here seem to be much broader. Unless something turns up that's more recent to connect it to the Gallery and the disruptive accounts that edited that page, it'd probably be better just to hanlde this case on its own merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Boskit190 is.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * Blocked without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bbb23, I have blocked Boskit190 for TOS violations. I think the behavioral connection is sufficient to tag as socks of Boskit190, but I'd like to hear the opinion of a clerk or another admin on that. I'm leaving this open for that reason.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the accounts as proven socks. Mike V • Talk 20:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the promotional pages created by the above users. --Yamla (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bbb23, I have blocked Boskit190 for TOS violations. I think the behavioral connection is sufficient to tag as socks of Boskit190, but I'd like to hear the opinion of a clerk or another admin on that. I'm leaving this open for that reason.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the accounts as proven socks. Mike V • Talk 20:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the promotional pages created by the above users. --Yamla (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bbb23, I have blocked Boskit190 for TOS violations. I think the behavioral connection is sufficient to tag as socks of Boskit190, but I'd like to hear the opinion of a clerk or another admin on that. I'm leaving this open for that reason.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the accounts as proven socks. Mike V • Talk 20:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the promotional pages created by the above users. --Yamla (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bbb23, I have blocked Boskit190 for TOS violations. I think the behavioral connection is sufficient to tag as socks of Boskit190, but I'd like to hear the opinion of a clerk or another admin on that. I'm leaving this open for that reason.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the accounts as proven socks. Mike V • Talk 20:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the promotional pages created by the above users. --Yamla (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the promotional pages created by the above users. --Yamla (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

29 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

A note left on my talk page by Fofitoo leads to an off-wiki page where a person making the same argument with similar English usage is addressed as "Umeoka". This is Boskit's original username on ENWP. Brianhe (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Post-cu comment: it's clear to me that these accounts were most likely operated by many individuals with many native languages and facility with Wikipedia. We have technically quite good articles about e.g. American accident lawyers mixed with a really poor Indian businessperson writeup, and noob stuff like this. Very strange stuff. My guess is a US operator with teams of paid subordinates, consistent with one or more LTAs. Brianhe (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Hey, If you don't mind, could you have look at Zackzwan again? The behavioral evidence doesn't really match with Boskit190 in this case as the editor seems to be editing local Malaysian topics (a school, university and demographics of a town in Kedah). Pinging  to have a look as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that was odd too, one of the reasons I made the "multiple languages" comment above. Brianhe (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅ to the previous socks:
 * Blocked all accounts without tags. Zackzwan is about four years older than the master. It's up to a clerk whether they want to take the trouble to move this case to a new master. I don't care one way or the other. However, if they do, all the tags in this case except Boskit190 should show as confirmed, not proven.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The technical evidence doesn't support 's theory that there are multiple individuals involved. One of the problems with paid editing cases at SPI is exactly when that is true, and therefore the technical evidence doesn't support socking. Instead, those kinds of cases belong somewhere other than at SPI except perhaps through a very extended claim of meat puppetry. Non-CUs can look at the behavior and draw certain conclusion, i.e., the Malaysian origin, but they of course can't know where these accounts are actually editing from. In the case of Zackzwan, who has only one non-stale edit, the account popped up as identical to those accounts that don't edit Malaysian topics, although much of the behavior, irrespective of what nationality articles were being created or how good the person's English was, was the same as many other accounts, particularly those that went past just a few edits. The technical evidence in this case was strong, and although I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of more than one master, the coincidences seem too many - and I left out many accounts that had no edits and many other accounts that had few edits for which there was almost no behavioral evidence. Those accounts bothered me, too, because this master has created sleepers in the past (the creation date of the account is much earlier than their first edit), but although there was criss-crossing technical evidence in many of the confirmed accounts, the accounts with no edits had only a little bit of evidence, and I didn't find it distinctive enough to block. Moving back to Zackzwan for a moment, because of Brianhe's and 's comments, perhaps it would be better for the clerk to keep Boskit190 as the master and tag these accounts accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided to leave Boskit190 as the master. I tagged all as confirmed socks and I'm closing this now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked all accounts without tags. Zackzwan is about four years older than the master. It's up to a clerk whether they want to take the trouble to move this case to a new master. I don't care one way or the other. However, if they do, all the tags in this case except Boskit190 should show as confirmed, not proven.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The technical evidence doesn't support 's theory that there are multiple individuals involved. One of the problems with paid editing cases at SPI is exactly when that is true, and therefore the technical evidence doesn't support socking. Instead, those kinds of cases belong somewhere other than at SPI except perhaps through a very extended claim of meat puppetry. Non-CUs can look at the behavior and draw certain conclusion, i.e., the Malaysian origin, but they of course can't know where these accounts are actually editing from. In the case of Zackzwan, who has only one non-stale edit, the account popped up as identical to those accounts that don't edit Malaysian topics, although much of the behavior, irrespective of what nationality articles were being created or how good the person's English was, was the same as many other accounts, particularly those that went past just a few edits. The technical evidence in this case was strong, and although I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of more than one master, the coincidences seem too many - and I left out many accounts that had no edits and many other accounts that had few edits for which there was almost no behavioral evidence. Those accounts bothered me, too, because this master has created sleepers in the past (the creation date of the account is much earlier than their first edit), but although there was criss-crossing technical evidence in many of the confirmed accounts, the accounts with no edits had only a little bit of evidence, and I didn't find it distinctive enough to block. Moving back to Zackzwan for a moment, because of Brianhe's and 's comments, perhaps it would be better for the clerk to keep Boskit190 as the master and tag these accounts accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided to leave Boskit190 as the master. I tagged all as confirmed socks and I'm closing this now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked all accounts without tags. Zackzwan is about four years older than the master. It's up to a clerk whether they want to take the trouble to move this case to a new master. I don't care one way or the other. However, if they do, all the tags in this case except Boskit190 should show as confirmed, not proven.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The technical evidence doesn't support 's theory that there are multiple individuals involved. One of the problems with paid editing cases at SPI is exactly when that is true, and therefore the technical evidence doesn't support socking. Instead, those kinds of cases belong somewhere other than at SPI except perhaps through a very extended claim of meat puppetry. Non-CUs can look at the behavior and draw certain conclusion, i.e., the Malaysian origin, but they of course can't know where these accounts are actually editing from. In the case of Zackzwan, who has only one non-stale edit, the account popped up as identical to those accounts that don't edit Malaysian topics, although much of the behavior, irrespective of what nationality articles were being created or how good the person's English was, was the same as many other accounts, particularly those that went past just a few edits. The technical evidence in this case was strong, and although I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of more than one master, the coincidences seem too many - and I left out many accounts that had no edits and many other accounts that had few edits for which there was almost no behavioral evidence. Those accounts bothered me, too, because this master has created sleepers in the past (the creation date of the account is much earlier than their first edit), but although there was criss-crossing technical evidence in many of the confirmed accounts, the accounts with no edits had only a little bit of evidence, and I didn't find it distinctive enough to block. Moving back to Zackzwan for a moment, because of Brianhe's and 's comments, perhaps it would be better for the clerk to keep Boskit190 as the master and tag these accounts accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided to leave Boskit190 as the master. I tagged all as confirmed socks and I'm closing this now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked all accounts without tags. Zackzwan is about four years older than the master. It's up to a clerk whether they want to take the trouble to move this case to a new master. I don't care one way or the other. However, if they do, all the tags in this case except Boskit190 should show as confirmed, not proven.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The technical evidence doesn't support 's theory that there are multiple individuals involved. One of the problems with paid editing cases at SPI is exactly when that is true, and therefore the technical evidence doesn't support socking. Instead, those kinds of cases belong somewhere other than at SPI except perhaps through a very extended claim of meat puppetry. Non-CUs can look at the behavior and draw certain conclusion, i.e., the Malaysian origin, but they of course can't know where these accounts are actually editing from. In the case of Zackzwan, who has only one non-stale edit, the account popped up as identical to those accounts that don't edit Malaysian topics, although much of the behavior, irrespective of what nationality articles were being created or how good the person's English was, was the same as many other accounts, particularly those that went past just a few edits. The technical evidence in this case was strong, and although I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of more than one master, the coincidences seem too many - and I left out many accounts that had no edits and many other accounts that had few edits for which there was almost no behavioral evidence. Those accounts bothered me, too, because this master has created sleepers in the past (the creation date of the account is much earlier than their first edit), but although there was criss-crossing technical evidence in many of the confirmed accounts, the accounts with no edits had only a little bit of evidence, and I didn't find it distinctive enough to block. Moving back to Zackzwan for a moment, because of Brianhe's and 's comments, perhaps it would be better for the clerk to keep Boskit190 as the master and tag these accounts accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided to leave Boskit190 as the master. I tagged all as confirmed socks and I'm closing this now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked all accounts without tags. Zackzwan is about four years older than the master. It's up to a clerk whether they want to take the trouble to move this case to a new master. I don't care one way or the other. However, if they do, all the tags in this case except Boskit190 should show as confirmed, not proven.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The technical evidence doesn't support 's theory that there are multiple individuals involved. One of the problems with paid editing cases at SPI is exactly when that is true, and therefore the technical evidence doesn't support socking. Instead, those kinds of cases belong somewhere other than at SPI except perhaps through a very extended claim of meat puppetry. Non-CUs can look at the behavior and draw certain conclusion, i.e., the Malaysian origin, but they of course can't know where these accounts are actually editing from. In the case of Zackzwan, who has only one non-stale edit, the account popped up as identical to those accounts that don't edit Malaysian topics, although much of the behavior, irrespective of what nationality articles were being created or how good the person's English was, was the same as many other accounts, particularly those that went past just a few edits. The technical evidence in this case was strong, and although I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of more than one master, the coincidences seem too many - and I left out many accounts that had no edits and many other accounts that had few edits for which there was almost no behavioral evidence. Those accounts bothered me, too, because this master has created sleepers in the past (the creation date of the account is much earlier than their first edit), but although there was criss-crossing technical evidence in many of the confirmed accounts, the accounts with no edits had only a little bit of evidence, and I didn't find it distinctive enough to block. Moving back to Zackzwan for a moment, because of Brianhe's and 's comments, perhaps it would be better for the clerk to keep Boskit190 as the master and tag these accounts accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided to leave Boskit190 as the master. I tagged all as confirmed socks and I'm closing this now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked all accounts without tags. Zackzwan is about four years older than the master. It's up to a clerk whether they want to take the trouble to move this case to a new master. I don't care one way or the other. However, if they do, all the tags in this case except Boskit190 should show as confirmed, not proven.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The technical evidence doesn't support 's theory that there are multiple individuals involved. One of the problems with paid editing cases at SPI is exactly when that is true, and therefore the technical evidence doesn't support socking. Instead, those kinds of cases belong somewhere other than at SPI except perhaps through a very extended claim of meat puppetry. Non-CUs can look at the behavior and draw certain conclusion, i.e., the Malaysian origin, but they of course can't know where these accounts are actually editing from. In the case of Zackzwan, who has only one non-stale edit, the account popped up as identical to those accounts that don't edit Malaysian topics, although much of the behavior, irrespective of what nationality articles were being created or how good the person's English was, was the same as many other accounts, particularly those that went past just a few edits. The technical evidence in this case was strong, and although I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of more than one master, the coincidences seem too many - and I left out many accounts that had no edits and many other accounts that had few edits for which there was almost no behavioral evidence. Those accounts bothered me, too, because this master has created sleepers in the past (the creation date of the account is much earlier than their first edit), but although there was criss-crossing technical evidence in many of the confirmed accounts, the accounts with no edits had only a little bit of evidence, and I didn't find it distinctive enough to block. Moving back to Zackzwan for a moment, because of Brianhe's and 's comments, perhaps it would be better for the clerk to keep Boskit190 as the master and tag these accounts accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided to leave Boskit190 as the master. I tagged all as confirmed socks and I'm closing this now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked all accounts without tags. Zackzwan is about four years older than the master. It's up to a clerk whether they want to take the trouble to move this case to a new master. I don't care one way or the other. However, if they do, all the tags in this case except Boskit190 should show as confirmed, not proven.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The technical evidence doesn't support 's theory that there are multiple individuals involved. One of the problems with paid editing cases at SPI is exactly when that is true, and therefore the technical evidence doesn't support socking. Instead, those kinds of cases belong somewhere other than at SPI except perhaps through a very extended claim of meat puppetry. Non-CUs can look at the behavior and draw certain conclusion, i.e., the Malaysian origin, but they of course can't know where these accounts are actually editing from. In the case of Zackzwan, who has only one non-stale edit, the account popped up as identical to those accounts that don't edit Malaysian topics, although much of the behavior, irrespective of what nationality articles were being created or how good the person's English was, was the same as many other accounts, particularly those that went past just a few edits. The technical evidence in this case was strong, and although I can't absolutely rule out the possibility of more than one master, the coincidences seem too many - and I left out many accounts that had no edits and many other accounts that had few edits for which there was almost no behavioral evidence. Those accounts bothered me, too, because this master has created sleepers in the past (the creation date of the account is much earlier than their first edit), but although there was criss-crossing technical evidence in many of the confirmed accounts, the accounts with no edits had only a little bit of evidence, and I didn't find it distinctive enough to block. Moving back to Zackzwan for a moment, because of Brianhe's and 's comments, perhaps it would be better for the clerk to keep Boskit190 as the master and tag these accounts accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided to leave Boskit190 as the master. I tagged all as confirmed socks and I'm closing this now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

SPA who recreated Steven Gursten, a creation of Boskit190 via his sock. Brianhe (talk) 03:51, 11 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

 * Unfortunately a CU here won't be possible against the sock master or other previous socks but it's been demonstrated that this editor has a history of creating sock farms so I'm inclined to request a check for sleepers. I've blocked this sock under WP:DUCK. In comparing the edits at Steven Gursten, they are strikingly different. I suspected WP:MEAT with WP:PAID but in looking at some of the versioning by other sock puppets that came back as CU confirmed, the versions there too were highly variable. One notable feature of this sock farm is the creation of short user pages. In the sock master they admit to paid editing. Mkdw talk 02:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - OK. I do understand it's hard to check for just one account, but given the history on this, I think a check for sleepers is warranted. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check. Marking as closed. Mkdw talk 17:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All the above accounts have undertake jobs on behalf of the same Upwork profile (unlinked due to WP:OUTING). The account Becky59 links them via CU to this SPI. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 13:02, 11 March 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
CU is fairly useless here since many accounts are abandoned and multiple proxies and dynamic IPs are being used by those recently active. However, it throw up a ✅ connection between Denmikeola and. I have blocked Belamp due to this confirmed connection; all other accounts are blocked (either by me for sockpuppetry or by other admins for UPE) and tagged. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 13:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Re-creation of Ameerh Naran Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:13, 30 October 2020 (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
Pro forma. Seems relatively ducky. Close. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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

All SPAs - Leanminim was registered after Twofour54 was draftified and immediately started editing the draft and removed the tag  and moved the draft to main and a month after their move was reverted user Deepyposts appeared and again removed the undisclosed paid tag ( and just after that the master logged in who was inactive since July, first disclosed their paid editing status and then submitted the draft again. Also, please note that Deepyposts created Draft:Yolanda L. Gaskins and used this image which was uploaded by user Bingley Bates who was blocked by  as a sock of Ross kramerov so if this is not a case of direct socking, meat is possible. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As per disclosed by Wanglers on their talk page this is a sock account of  and I have shared the off-wiki details with GeneralNotability. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:55, 7 November 2020 (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

 * Right then. I've Wanglers as Boskit190 per their disclosure of their upwork. I've blocked Leanminim and Deepyposts as UPEs, connection to this group unknown. I've left CarterC alone since they haven't done anything blatantly UPE (though it is indeed suspicious that they found the draft as one of their first edits). Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both Uç Puanixx and began by making eleven edits to their user pages. They then switched to adding links to "See also" sections; and after that, other gnome tasks such as adding short descriptions, categories, and maintenance tags. Uç Puanixx also greeted GGharama and, who created —an article later edited by both Uç Puanixx and GGharama.

Puanixx also edits in a way that suggests he is an UPE, such as removing unflattering information from an article about a company, making two false claims in the edit summary: that is an unreliable source and that the article is "sponsored". Kleinpecan (talk) 16:47, 6 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

 * I just noticed some overlap with, whom you blocked as part of the Archiedesai SPI, on Chime (company) – seems behaviourally close to the two accounts mentioned here as well. Do you have any thoughts on that connection? I'm leaning towards indeffing as obvious sock linked to multiple sockfarms and for advertising on Yas Waterworld Abu Dhabi, but I'd appreciate your input more generally. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , all of them are engaging in pretty obvious UPE behavior, but I don't think there's anything especially distinctive to tie this latest account to either one. Maybe worth a CU, though. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Blablubbs Are you still working on this? If not, I'd like to go ahead and close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Began by making ten edits to his user page, then switched to editing categories and short descriptions, and later switched to creating promotional articles such as Ragebite (speedily deleted) and Draft:Queensway Academy (draftified), as well as adding promotional nonsense to Chime (company), selectively quoting only the most innocent part of the edit. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:24, 13 October 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

 * I don't see any evidence that they're Boskit, but they're an obvious UPE. Ran CU for a sleeper check on my own initiative. Technical data suggests intentional actions to evade CU, which makes me even more convinced they're up to something. (no reason to believe this is Boskit). GeneralNotability (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)