Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Checkin34z/Archive

15 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The suspected master is engaged in a content dispute at Tishma. The suspected puppets are new accounts, who, within two or three edits, found the rather obscure article and stoked edit warring there by reimposing the master's preferred version. They used edit summaries that appear disingenuous. MinkieM use the deceptively innocuous summary "more information". EastWalter wrote "Found a vandal in action! Someone please report this guy :)", which, though it perhaps intentionally misidentifies vandalism, displays more familiarity with Wikipedia jargon than I would expect on day one.


 * MinkieM restores master's version after eight edits by :
 * Master's does the same after MinkieM's edit is reverted:


 * Master's edits:, and, after reverted,
 * EastWalter's echo after master was reverted:

The sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry seems to be an attempt to inflate apparent support for the master's position in the content dispute. If the master meant to camouflage their violation of WP:3RR , they failed. -- Worldbruce (talk) 07:44, 15 May 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 following accounts are ✅:
 * is either or ❌.
 * I've blocked and tagged the confirmed accounts and will let a clerk decide what to do with EastWalter.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the inconclusive CU results and the fact that I'm not all that confident with the behavioral evidence, I'm going to leave EastWalter be for now. We can keep an eye on the account and see if a behavioral pattern emerges. Mike V • Talk 17:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * is either or ❌.
 * I've blocked and tagged the confirmed accounts and will let a clerk decide what to do with EastWalter.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the inconclusive CU results and the fact that I'm not all that confident with the behavioral evidence, I'm going to leave EastWalter be for now. We can keep an eye on the account and see if a behavioral pattern emerges. Mike V • Talk 17:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Sockmaster is an WP:SPA focused on glorifying Tishma (making it what another editor described as "a fawning fan letter"). -- Worldbruce (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SandPeak, like the master, is an WP:SPA dedicated to editing the biography of Tishma, an otherwise infrequently edited Bangladeshi musician.
 * SandPeak began editing several days after a copy editor gave the article a much needed going over.
 * SandPeak's first edit was to undo the copy editing, while mixing in some new material. Diff of 's copy edit:, Diff from start of copy edit to end of SandPeak's first edit: . Comparing the two diffs, one can see that SandPeak preserved only EggOfReason's removal of the copy edit cleanup tag when they were done, not any of their copy edits.
 * Undoing attempts to improve the article by other editors' (even bots!), without apparently understanding their work, is characteristic of the master and their socks, for example:
 * Four days after 's edit (fixed wikilink(s) in the infobox's genre parameter & general fixes using AWB (10242)), Checkin34z reverted
 * Two days after 's edits (mostly filling in bare references with reFill, although they also removed the over-the-top phrase "the most successful and well-known"), Checkin34z reverted.
 * Five days after my first edits to the article (tagging for cleanup, filling in bare references, consolidating duplicate references, repairing dead links, replacing a blacklisted url, removing one redundant source that failed verification, italicizing album titles, ordering sections per WP:LAYOUT and removing social sites readily accessible from official home page per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL), Checkin34z reverted
 * The day after removed one inappropriate and two redundant categories, Checkin34z and 103.245.207.5 together restored them and added three more
 * Hours after made major edits ("removed unnecessary citation, pov and peacock terms, general clean up, fancruft"), Checkin34z reverted
 * After added cleanup template, Checkin34z reverted
 * The day after made several edits ("Edited the first part of the article to make it less 'sensational'."), sockpuppet  reverted
 * Two days after 's cleanup, 119.76.145.31 reverted
 * Removing cleanup tags without resolving them (or, as SandPeak did, not restoring them when they revert the fixes that dealt with them), is also characteristic of the master and their socks. Examples above include removing linkrot in #2, removing spacing and MOSLOW in #3, removing blacklisted and better source in #6, and removing copy edit and unreliable sources in #8. A couple other examples:removing cleanup without having done any cleanup, and removing unreliable source and overcite without fixing either.
 * Any posting of a user warning template or explanation of how the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies or guidelines triggers an indignant, wounded, and disingenuous reply from the master or suspected socks, for example:
 * "hello, i did not restore and youtube or facebook links "repeatedly" so please don't exaggerate as that is not fair ... please use the talk page yourself also instead of sending me personal messages and attacking my edits?" - Checkin34z (they had restored the links six times in five weeks)
 * "hey what are u saying? i fixed the problems and removed the blacklisted links!" - Checkin34z (they didn't fix the problems or remove the blacklisted links)
 * "Really confused. What???? Who are you and what is all this??? Please don't randomly harass writers like this!" - EastWalter (an unconfirmed suspect in the first SPI)
 * "who are you and why are you harassing me? Stop it!" - EastWalter
 * "warning for what? What did i do? This is rude! Don't disturb me and yes its harassing." - EastWalter
 * "why did u leave a message like that on my page? that was very uncalled for ... " - SandPeak

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment: For what it's worth: I see the June 11, 2014 BattyBot edit was reverted by on June 15 in this edit.  The edit summary states "(reverted possible vandalisms to previous version by BattyBot)", which leads me to believe that Checkin34z did not intend to revert the BattyBot edit, but only the intervening edits by .  When BattyBot made a similar edit on June 29, it appears that edit was not reverted.  GoingBatty (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked the sockpuppet account. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)