Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cdswalkthrough/Archive

24 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Several users exhibiting the same passion to edit articles about Chinese surnames and the Three Kingdoms period of China without having the basic understanding of the Chinese language, and worse, the willingness to provide sources for their edits. Specifically, the IP and Frayten like to revert to each other's versions when they have been reverted by others (ie. When Frayten gets reverted, the IP will come out to revert back to Frayten's version [example diffs: IP revertingto Frayten's verion], and vice versa. [example diffs: Frayten revertingto IP's version]) This makes it suspicious that the two accounts are working in tandem, since the two accounts both rarely communicates with other editors, let alone to each other. Also suspiciously, when an editor questions whether Frayten is related to other users who exhibited similar behaviour before (named above), Frayten stops editing and the IP comes out to revert Cao Cao back to Frayten's version. This looks like an implicit confession that the other two named accounts are indeed his, and at the very least a CheckUser should be performed to clear the suspicion. _dk (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I add that Frayten's recent behaviour in ignoring other editor's attempts at communication and warnings and blanking them is very much like the ones by  which got him indefed. I now suspect that Frayten is a sockpuppet that Bmotbmot uses to get around his indef block. _dk (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I'd like to add that all three named users exhibit the same obsession with Chinese surname articles, creating a number of incoherent and unsourced new articles that require a lot of effort to clean up, and some have been deleted. -Zanhe (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

After Frayten was recently blocked by for disruptive editing, a sleeper account,, became active and started editing the same type of articles: Chinese surnames and historical biography, exhibiting similar behaviour: creating articles without sources and written in poor English. As this account is clearly not stale, I've reopened the Checkuser request. -Zanhe (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and are . .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  01:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Cdswalkthrough's editing bears a large amount of similarity to that of Frayten and 99.235.106.13, not only in terms of the general type and style of editing, as described by Zanhe, but also in the specific articles edited, and in a few cases specific edits similar enough to amount to small-scale edit warring. Adding that to the timing of the use of the accounts (Cdswalkthrough stops editing, Frayten edits, Frayten is blocked, Cdswalkthrough comes back and edits again) I see a duck, so I have blocked both accounts. I see no such obvious damning evidence to connect Bmotbmot or Newdod to Frayten/Cdswalkthrough/99.235.106.13, though they are both certainly possible. In view of the resurrection of Cdswalkthrough, an old dormant account, to evade Frayten's block since Ponyo's decline of a CU request, it may well be helpful to have a CU for possible sleepers now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * is a ✅ sock of . .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That seems to be all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

11 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Clear sockpuppet of banned sockmaster editing the same articles (Chinese historical personages). WP:DUCK. _dk (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2015 (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 are ✅. Note that  from the archives is an older account than Frayten.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  08:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved the case and tagged the accounts in this case to reflect the oldest account. Mike V • Talk 19:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

28 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New accounts placing templates on Chinese historical biographies (not the sort of thing that newbies do) and a refusal to address concerns except to blank them reminiscent of blocked socks  et al. CUI requested for possible sleepers. _dk (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2015 (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

 * ✅, both blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Both accounts tagged as well. Mike V • Talk 23:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

02 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Clear sock of banned sockpuppets and. CU requested for possible sleepers and new accounts. _dk (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2015 (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

 * Both socks, last CU ran less than a week ago so I don't think a sleeper check is immediately necessary. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

03 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Rather obvious from editing habits and all. LDS contact me 17:26, 3 February 2015 (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

 * Both socks, last CU ran less than a week ago so I don't think a sleeper check is immediately necessary. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

05 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Has been systematically reverting to the sock master's version of articles, undoing reversions that were done to previous socks. When he's not undoing he's following his previous editing patterns of adding templates to Chinese historical biographies, something not expected for a typical new IP user. _dk (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2015 (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

 * Obvious block evasion. I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

10 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Similar editing habits such as adding infoboxes to articles on Chinese historical figures, restoring earlier edits by sockpuppets which were reverted. Maybe a range block will help? LDS contact me 18:06, 10 February 2015 (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

 * It's the same IP as the last report, so I reinstated the block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 01:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

25 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Already blocked as a WP:DUCK, but I am still requesting for CheckUser to be used to identify sleepers. By the way, the IP account's block has expired and he might use it to edit again. LDS contact me 16:43, 25 February 2015 (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 this account for block evasion yesterday and checked for additional accounts. There's nothing left to do here except tag the sock, which I've now done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

07 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Passes WP:DUCK. LDS contact me 19:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The editing habits of 205.189.94.11 are evidently similar to those of Cdswalkthrough's previous sockpuppets. All you probably need to do is to look at the edit histories of the pages he has edited. You will notice some similarities in editing patterns. The most striking example would be his undoing of reverts made by other editors on the edits by his already blocked sockpuppets. Another prominent example is his placing of infoboxes on articles of Chinese historical persons. Why would an anonymous IP user restore a sockpuppet's edits by undoing the earlier reverts? Do we often see IP users who know how to go to 'edit history' and press 'undo'? How likely is it for an IP user to know how to add infoboxes to articles (assuming he is relatively new to Wikipedia)?   LDS  contact me 04:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are two examples. On Cen Wenben: this edit by 205.189.94.11 and this edit by an earlier confirmed sockpuppet. On Zhuge Liang: this edit by 205.189.94.11 and this edit by an earlier confirmed sockpuppet.   LDS  contact me 04:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can ask for help since he has dealt with quite a number of the previous sockpuppets?    LDS  contact me 15:09, 8 March 2015 (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

 * - No, it does not unless you provide some evidence.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Thanks, . I'm denying the CheckUser because we may not use the CU to connect an account with an IP. Behavioral evidence is very strong, so I believe the IP should be blocked anyway.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For : WP:DUCK sock, and for two weeks. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

08 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Compare this edit by Zhangwudi with this edit by Yuanwudi (a confirmed sockpuppet). Same old habit of creating usernames that end with "wudi". LDS contact me 17:28, 8 March 2015 (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

 * . Admin needed to block.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

13 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Editing the same articles as the previous sockpuppets used to. Uses another username "Songmingdi" ("Emperor Ming of Song") similar to his earlier usernames (e.g. Yuanwudi, Xiaowudi). LDS contact me 09:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Compare this edit by Songmingdi and this edit by 205.189.94.11 (an IP sock).   LDS  contact me 09:09, 13 March 2015 (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

 * - To check this based on the provided diff, and also to check for sleepers.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * is sock of Cdswalkthrough. No sleepers found. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Account tagged, closing. Mike V • Talk 18:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

19 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Compare this edit by 207.164.255.139 with this edit by a confirmed sockpuppet. LDS contact me 02:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The edits are identical! 68.237.140.93 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This IP account was also previously used alongside other sockpuppets (e.g. User:Xianwendi, User:Xianyongdi) to edit the article Zhang Liang (Western Han). See the page's edit history. LDS contact me 02:11, 19 March 2015 (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 agree that this is block evasion, but with only two edits, the latter being several days ago, and my guess that they are hopping from IP to IP (using locations like public libraries and other similar public terminals), I see no point in blocking. Obviously, if this IP picks up again, a block would be in order. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

23 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Edits similar articles (e.g. Yuchi Jingde, Zhangsun Wuji) and makes similar changes such as adding infoboxes. The use of a username ending with "-di" gives him away.

Compare this edit by Zhongwudi with these edits by Songmingdi (a confirmed sock).

See also this edit by Zhongwudi and this edit by Yuanwudi (a confirmed sock). LDS contact me 17:07, 23 March 2015 (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

 * Technically and blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

03 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The latest edits (on 3 March) speak for themselves. LDS contact me 03:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at what he wrote in this edit summary.   LDS  contact me 03:06, 3 April 2015 (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 CU is declined - checkusers won't directly link IPs to accounts. That being said, the behavioural evidence is obvious and they even admitted they were socking. The edits have been reverted and there is no point blocking the IP as it was only used for a short burst yesterday and they have in all likelihood moved on. You can ping me if they pop up again.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

29 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Similar editing habits on articles such as Cui Renshi and Yuchi Jingde. New users normally wouldn't be so experienced in checking edit histories and using the 'undo' function. Clearly, this user must have been on Wikipedia and edited those pages before. LDS contact me 23:27, 29 April 2015 (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  are all ✅ and blocked. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  23:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing. Mike V • Talk 05:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

04 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Continuing his previous pattern of exclusively editing Chinese historical biographies, switching infoboxes in them and adding mostly unneeded section breaks, in bad grammar. CU requested for sleepers. _dk (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2015 (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

 * Sorry, I had already run the check and blocked the account when you marked it as in progress!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'd barely gotten started anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Between the strong behavioural evidence and the concurring technical evidence, I've blocked the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

11 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Our friend (username modelling himself in the tradition of Chinese emperors like his previous socks) is now adding images of dubious copyright statuses into Chinese historical biographies, in addition to making extra section headings as before. Notably, the commons account he uses to upload the images he adds into the article is still at User:Yiwenshi (the name of a previous sock), proving they are the same person. CU for sleepers. _dk (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2015 (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

 * It's obviously a ✅ account. There is a soft block on his typical range, but there are enough alternative ranges at his disposal that he can skirt the soft block to create new accounts. At this point it's a case of 'revert-block-ignore', and I've semi'ed some of his most frequented articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

19 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Have been adding unneeded headings and switching infoboxes (without regard for the integrity of the information inside) in Chinese historical biographies like the previous socks and IPs. The IP range is close to what has been reported before too. _dk (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2015 (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

 * Quacking loudly; blocked the most recent IP (99.234.212.232). I've semied some additional targets.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

23 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Adding images (of questionable quality and unclear copyright status) newly uploaded by commons user Yiwenshi, who is a confirmed sockpuppet here. _dk (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2015 (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

 * Blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

23 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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


 * 1) edit as Nineth Kazekage
 * 2) after being reverted, same edit as Nineth Kazekage
 * 3) * Message to user, explaining reason for reversion
 * 4) Again same edit, this time as 172.56.17.44

See in this context also the denied blocked user review request. &mdash; Sebastian 07:13, 23 August 2015 (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 is not really socking, as she admits being the same user in the edit summary. This is abusive logged-out editing. I'm going to issue one formal warning on the user talk page, that should be enough.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * CU confirmed. Adding here for the record. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:43, 24 November 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

 * As noted, already ✅, blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The very first edit by this new user was to reinstate a template favoured by confirmed Cdswalkthrough sock back into an article. I figured it's quite likely this is a sock as well. _dk (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2017 (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  all ✅ and blocked. I've left them untagged per WP:DENY. Closing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)




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

I previously filed a report of User:Albertaont on ANI but received no attention from admins. I noticed that Albertaont WP:SOCKSTRIKEd a lot of User:Flickotown's edits, so I assume they know each other. Today I was looking at some of Flickotown's edits and noticed that Flickotown claimed that the IP 104.243.98.96 was the same person as Albertaont. Upon further investigation, I believe they indeed are the same person, and both are active. I further looked at the whole 104.243.98.0/24 range, and found one of the IPs previously restored one of Cdswalkthrough's socks' edits. Both Albertaont and Cdswalkthrough have edited extensively on China-related topics. Normchou  💬 00:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi Checkuser, 104.243.98.96 is the account I used when I started. I created my actual account thereafter, since I learned IPs can't edit anything that is protected. I have two computers I use (a work and personal), and on occasion I have forgotten to log in which is why the IP still comes up from time to time. You will see that the activities on the IP have slowly tapered off. Not sure who this other account is, that would predate my experience on wiki. Thanks Albertaont (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please pay particular attention to the interaction timeline and see how they fast switched the account back to the IP, as well as when they switched back and forth: 2020-07-21, 2020-07-31, 2020-08-16, 2020-09-07, 2020-10-06, 2020-11-08, 2020-11-22. This directly refutes what they said above, on occasion I have forgotten to log in which is why the IP still comes up from time to time. Normchou   💬 04:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, please notice the similarity in the phrases that both Albertaont and Cdswalkthrough liked to use, such as no need (to/for), no reason to, in their edit summaries. Normchou   💬 06:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Another IP on the range edited Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit on October 3, 2019 . According to Albertaont's user page, they have an interest in electric and aviation technologies . To me it looks like it has always been the same person on this IP range. Normchou   💬 04:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also definitely not me. I had a different ISP back in 2019. Nice to know someone in my city also likes B-2s though. Albertaont (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a different ISP back in 2019 is just as unverifiable as Not sure who this other account is, that would predate my experience on wiki, since their current account was created on July 20, 2020. On the other hand, the IP above that they admitted was them, made one of their first three edits on June 24, 2020 on WP:CEN, a noticeboard that I had no idea about until I was looking for their diffs today. Although Albertaont claimed that I created my actual account thereafter, since I learned IPs can't edit anything that is protected, it seems highly unlikely that they were such a user when they made their first edits using the IP.  Normchou   💬 06:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC); edited 06:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Moving SPI report to correct accused master account.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . .  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In light of the CheckUser evidence, this is at best unproven, though I'm inclined to believe there is no sockpuppetry here. Closing without further action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)