Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CafeGurrier66/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
TOPaner is definitely a sock of someone, I think they are CafeGurrier but I've requested checkuser to confirm.

CafeGurrier was blocked about a month ago due to long term issues with incompetent screwing around in project pages that they obviously do not understand. Since being blocked they have been avoiding their block as various IP's in the range, see evidence here and here. The range block Tamzin put in place has just expired, and one of the first edits out of that range was another WP:DUCKY edit handing out a warning template to Tamzin.

Looking at the edits of TOPanner there's a significant amount of overlap with CafeGurrier and their logged out IP socking. Incorrectly trying to archive threads at the village pump, even using two copies of the atop template. Requesting changes to pages in the Mediawiki namespace that do not make a lot of sense. Nominating redirects for deletion for incorrect/semi nonsensical reasons, which was a favourite behaviour of cafegurrier. Finally the creation of this talk page in their third edit is highly suspicious, how many newbies genuinely know about things like centralised discussions two edits in? . Overall I think the evidence points strongly to them being a sock of someone, and based on behavioural overlaps (especially the village pump and redirects) I believe this is most likely cafegurrier. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If you want another pair of diffs how about these. An IP from the range that has been WP:DUCK blocked as CafeGurrier in the past shows up to vote support to a proposal, giving no rationale . A few hours later TOPaner shows up to vote on the same proposal, also voting support and also giving no rationale . 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:00, 31 May 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

 * - Please compare the named accounts. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, ; the accounts are confirmed and TOPaner is blocked. What a strange obsession. Note: I lengthened the block on the named range. It is worthwhile noting that TOPaner did not operate from that range, but used two other ranges that CafeG had used also. I placed no blocks on those ranges since there was no evidence of widespread logged-out editing. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Added tags, closing. Spicy (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Seems similar to the MO. Brand new account, jumped right in to vote on an editing tool at VPR, on the sockmasters tp a WMF person had spoken to them about the upcoming skin change. GOes and creates own tp with an archive temp, much like the last sock. Also at BN, "Closing" the inactive sysop section by marking Done as all of them were desysopped. Also the name is somewhat similar to the last sock. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  16:32, 5 June 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 conclusive to me, particularly the obsession with the VP; see also this trolling. firefly  ( t · c ) 17:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Obviously not a new user, very similar behaviour to previous socks.

First edits were to create a user page quoting a system message, and a talk page with a template, which are both odd edits for a newbie to make and match up well with the contributions of previous accounts, which tend to make blank talk pages with templates and user pages quoting bits of Wikipedia policy of tools.

They made a post at the teahouse stating that they thought you got paid for editing wikipedia,, 30 minutes later they go to a talk page to start quoting wikipedia policy like WP:NOR. I find it implausible that someone would both simultaneously know so little about Wikipedia while also being aware of its policies and templates.

Adds raw stub to articles, just like previous accounts

Makes exclusive use of the 2017 wikitext editor, just like previous accounts.

After making a few edits to articles followed by jumping straight into disrupting the village pump, which is a favourite pastime of this sock master.

Requesting checkuser due to the ridiculous number of accounts they have made over the last few weeks.163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 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

 * . I blocked earlier today and flagged down a CU off-wiki who took a look; that check didn't find anything, and this creation was sequential, so I don't think checking again is likely to be helpful. Closing.  --Blablubbs (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
See below. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 18 June 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

 * ✅ and . Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Created user page in the same way as a previous confirmed sock, diving right into advanced projectspace. DanCherek (talk) 14:59, 22 June 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

 * . Goodness gracious. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Logging for the record — TNT (talk • she/her) 21:32, 23 June 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

 * is technically very to .  — TNT (talk • she/her) 21:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Quacks like previous socks, e.g. at Template:Blocked text/sandbox. Certes (talk) 15:24, 26 June 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

 * Unbelievable. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
After apparently going silent for a fortnight, here's another report for CafeGurrier66. Unfortunately, cluelessly jumping into metapedian areas is his modus operandi at this point. Qhnbgjt has redacted another's talk page comment, removing the name of a blocked user with the edit summary "WP:DENY", and has made a report at AN with a heading of "Off-WP discussion" and a simple link, seemingly implying canvassing (though it is admittedly difficult to tell). The user has also jumped into answering edit requests, including this strange, strange edit.

Qhnbgjt, less than a day after. Qhnbgjt makes edits until 08:48 and goes silent. , is created. Given how incredibly blatant Unedifan was, Qhnbgjt may be an attempt to try to fly under the radar and lull us into a false sense of security. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:07, 10 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

 * A check was run a few hours ago, which threw up interesting results. However, the CheckUser did not have the time to see if proxies were being used. In that light, please check for proxy use and, if the account is unrelated to CafeGurrier, to see if there are technical matches to any others – this does not feel like a new editor's behaviour. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the only evidence is that they, like CG, are rapidly in over their head in projectspace, I don't think that's a strong enough basis for a check against CG. Based on my own experience with CG, this account lacks any of the tells I'd look for. It certainly seems reasonable that a CU went for a discretionary check here; if there's a case for further discretionary checking, that can be discussed with the same CU or another one if they're unavailable. But that's not an SPI check, and thus I can't endorse it. . Closing without prejudice against refile if clearer evidence emerges. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 05:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that I've endorsed against a different master at Sockpuppet investigations/Awolf58. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
WP:DUCK Algeria telecoms IP, first edits were mucking about at ANI, third edit was changing the unblock template sandbox. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:18, 12 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

 * for a week, hard. Looking at, from 25/26 June is also CafeGurrier, but wasn't blocked at the time. , but thought it might be worth noting. Case closed. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
A load more IPs in the same /16 range as the IP blocked yesterday. Typical Cafegurrier behaviour - mucking about with sockpuppet and blocked templates, warning other editors and handing out block messages, messing around at the noticeboards etc. One of these has already been blocked. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 12:37, 13 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

 * for . If disruption persists after that week, we'll look at extending it, but it may also be worth noting that we have blocked other /16s in the past: . . Sdrqaz (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * 1) Premature TE rights request: CafeGurrier66, Ilovemydoodle
 * 2) Trolling: User:Ilovemydoodle/indef, TSOPar's diff on own userpage. wikt:doodle meaning 3 may also count.
 * TOPaner: im not a spambot, im a human.; Ilovemydoodle: I am not a sockpuppet or a troll. Don't see many new users say this on their userpage for no reason.
 * 1) "This user is interested in RfCs": rather similar VPPR posts which mostly get speedy closed: Ilovemydoodle (rename AFD to VFD), Lynvir (move main page), TOPaner (add CC-BY-SA logo),  CafeGurrier66 (RM within RFC), CafeGurrier66 (new vector default)
 * 2) See BD2412's observations of Ilovemydoodle at wikiquote here
 * 3) Also, Ilovemydoodle has a pretty strong headstart from their initial edits. Clearly not a new editor.
 * 4) I hope these are enough for a duck check. If not, please let me know. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

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

I've spotted and reported a lot of Cafegurrier socks, but I don't think Ilovemydoodle is one of them. Ilovemydoodle has stated that they edit logged out as, and looking at the contributions and overlap it's obvious they're not lying. That IP range is based in New York, CafeGurrier is Algerian. There are issues with Ilovemydoodle's editing, mostly based around a complete lack of basic competence, but they don't appear to be a sock (at least, not of this master). 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * In addition to the geolocation info mentioned above, there are more than enough differences in English proficiency and general behaviour to convince me that Ilovemydoodle and CafeGurrier66 are different people. That's not to say that there are no concerns with ILMD's edits - I just don't think they are a sock of this particular user. Closing without further action from a SPI perspective. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
WP:DUCK. Algerian IP screwing around in project space. The ovelap is especially obvious if you look at the edits from the /16 range on mediawiki, mw:Special:Contributions/197.202.0.0/16. This is an obvious cafegurrier edit, compare to. Alternativley compare to. Might be a bit stale to block, but it's probably worth noting that they've been editing as 197.202.0.0/16 on other projects. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:07, 20 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

 * Stale edits. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)