Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyber.Eyes.2005/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
These same edits on Nuristanis, Dehwar, Purigpa, tells that this user is evading the block on his main account. LearnIndology (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

When I saw the result of this SPI, I was at first relieved: 'Phew! One fewer overenthusiastic rookie to clean up after!'. But then I looked at the previous account, and how they got banned, and I frankly don't get it. So, Cyber.Eyes.2005 registers and account and makes 7 edits on 19 March. Some are improvements, some aren't, all are good-faith. What they needed at that stage was a welcome message thanking them for the copyediting but also explaining how wikipedia works, and especially the need for sourcing. What do they get? All their edits are reverted without explanation by, who then posts the very first message on that user talk page, which is a level-2 (?!) warning about unspecified disruptive behaviour. Cyber.Eyes.2005 then makes 8 more edits, predictably of the same overall level of good-faith and mixed CIR as the first batch, which earns them further unexplained blanket reverts and a level-3 warning by Aman Kumar Goel. On the following day, four more edit – again not well-executed, but all in good faith – and they get indeffed by per NOTHERE (?!).

Now that ship has sailed. This young person has walked away believing Wikipedia to be a place where reverts and blocks are dished out arbitrarily and where no explanations are given. Nothing we do will change that, and we're probably stuck with the prospect of returning socks. But really, guys, this could have been handled differently. Next time a new editor bungles it with an article, just try to help out first, alright? It's not a lot of effort to check if some part of an edit can be retained instead of blankly reverted, and it's not a lot of effort to post welcome or to leave a pointer to WP:RS. – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , his edits clearly showed WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour characteristic of the problems Wikipedia has faced concerning nationalism. This one is a good example--removing the word "India" from every article possible where Pakistani topics and Indian topics overlap. I applaud the actions of  and --one less problematic account editors here have to worry about. LearnIndology (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Restored the same image. Same editing area. Interaction. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * would like to request admins for protection of these pages. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:49, 30 April 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

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * is ✅.  is ✅  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Baba sagheer doesn't look related and is already blocked anyway. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Already back to restore his sock edits. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:08, 8 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

 * The restoration of the prior sock edit and the overlap on 5 relatively obscure articles within 14 edits is enough for me to indef the sock on behaviour alone. Not sure that CU is warranted here, but will leave that to the clerks. firefly  ( t · c ) 13:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
and. . Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:09, 13 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

 * -  Girth Summit  (blether)  16:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Going purely on the technical data I'd have said 'likely', but given the username and editing interests, I'm calling this ✅. Also:
 * Blocking etc. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocking etc. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocking etc. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Apparently same edits on Brokpa, Gandhara kingdom, Balti people, and more. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

I reverted edits by user in the article Hindkowans that were clearly controversial and supported vandalism but they got reverted by user  without any reason provided and now I'm being accused by him for 'Sockpuppetry', the evidence provided by user  are not solid and can't prove sockpuppetry. I request the administrators to please look into this fake sockpuppetry claim accused on me. (ཧེ་དར - སྦལ་ཏི། (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC))

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Duck, particularly . - For confirmation and a sleeper check please, as a few were found last time. --Jack Frost (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ that the following accounts (including sleepers) belong to each other and match the accounts listed in the archive:
 * All accounts now blocked. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All accounts now blocked. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All accounts now blocked. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All accounts now blocked. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * —Jack Frost (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Brand new user reinstated this edit made by a now CU blocked sock of sockmaster. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:24, 29 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

 * - already blocked, but I suppose it's worth a sleeper check. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * that the following account matches accounts in the earlier report:
 * Sadly, no sleepers this time around. I'm only going so far as to say likely, but combined with the behavioural evidence, I believe that's plenty. Clerks and admins, I welcome constructive feedback on improving my CU investigations. --Yamla (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me :) Tagged, closing. Spicy (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me :) Tagged, closing. Spicy (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Clearly same. LearnIndology (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Seems like a WP:DUCK. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Adds images from google without proper copyright information. Replaced the existing image with one that was uploaded by confirmed sock User:NorthernLegends. Similar style of editing, using Ethnologue as sources. Same topic area, northern Pakistan and Afghanistan related. Interaction. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:04, 14 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 - they geolocate to the same place, and are moving around some of the same (very wide) ranges as previous accounts, but there isn't a smoking gun - .   Girth Summit  (blether)  16:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - seems likely to be a sock based on the evidence presented and other behavioural similarities that I noticed. Please indef REBELIOUS SOUL as a suspected sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she|they|xe) 00:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Duck. Same type of disruption right from account registration. Chronologically, appears to be the master, but my guts are saying the account is a part of an older LTA farm (just see how disruption started immediately after account registration). Stale, but blocking might be a good idea since I'm unable to keep an eye on it. — kashmīrī  TALK  02:20, 19 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 stale - they haven't edited in almost a year. Closing without action, we can revisit if the account becomes active again.  Girth Summit  (blether)  16:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Clearly the same user:,. Editorkamran (talk) 03:25, 7 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

 * ✅. No sleepers jumping out, but again, they are jumping around a couple of very wide ranges so I might easily have missed something. Blocked and tagged, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Unblock request on their talk page, same edits as before (e.g. This, this compared to e.g. this from ). Yamla (talk) 12:24, 21 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
✅, blocked and tagged. --Yamla (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Brand new user "Aayan Uzoqov" restored the exact same content that CU blocked sock "People of Indus" originally tried to add to the Uzbeks article. Basically promoting Pakistan's role in Central Asian demography-related figures, and vice versa. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * More: Here they restored the exact same content that CU blocked sock "Shayyan Behzad" originally- tried to add to the Tajiks article. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:19, 29 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

 * ✅ . Mkdw  talk 05:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Brand new account "Merxat Yalkun" restored the same edits that the sockmaster and his socks are very interested in adding to the Uzbeks article.- - LouisAragon (talk) 14:45, 3 August 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

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Brand new account "Turkic Khanate" restored the exact same edit originally made by the sockmaster's sock IP at Pakistan–Uzbekistan relations. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

More: trying to make it seem as if Uzbeks are a massive, native group to Pakistan, similar to earlier blocked socks. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:53, 4 August 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

 * ✅ -- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Brand new account Kirito Otaku fixed a reference, that was added by a known IP of the sockmaster, aimed at reinstating the content that the sockmaster and Co insist on adding to the Uzbeks in Pakistan article. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:05, 10 August 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

 * -  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, also:
 * Blocking etc. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocking etc. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
All three new accounts end up meeting at Nuristanis, like previous socks.

Other same interests include Siddi, Wakhi language, Uzbeks, and others. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:27, 19 October 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

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All three ✅ -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same obsession with linking Central Asian and Tibetan ethnic groups to Pakistan. Brand new account Ibrahim Karlugh restored the same sort of content that blocked socks Muhafiz-e Pakistan and Shayyan Behzad etc. tried to add to the Purigpa article. Same goes for the Zangskari language article, which is heavily targeted by the sockmaster and his sock accounts and IPs.- - LouisAragon (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2023 (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

 * -  Girth Summit  (blether)  14:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, plus:
 * Don't see any more. Blocking etc. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't see any more. Blocking etc. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same interests. Asking recreation of article Khajuna here which was created by this sockmaster. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:33, 14 February 2023 (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

 * - looking pretty likely, and there are more accounts. Give me a minute to be sure.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Also:
 * I'm not seeing any more right now, but they're jumping about some very wide ranges - come back if you see anything else suspicious. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any more right now, but they're jumping about some very wide ranges - come back if you see anything else suspicious. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any more right now, but they're jumping about some very wide ranges - come back if you see anything else suspicious. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any more right now, but they're jumping about some very wide ranges - come back if you see anything else suspicious. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
IP addresses restoring the same edits of the previous socks and in the same IP ranges.

A much needed block is needed for the 119.158.0.0/18 as the sockpuppeteer has been disrupting a wide range of articles continuously.

Also asking for a CU on, blocked sockpuppeteer which is most likely connected with this sockpuppeteer. Gotitbro (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify, with regards the comment below, that this sock network has been known to use a wide range of IP addresses (per the SPI archive here) and the admin made these observations for Muhafiz-e-Pakistan in the link below:

Not a different continent but different locations, meat-puppetry is definitely not out of the question here, though I think it more likely to be a case of IP hopping than co-ordination per the very similar editing ehaviours and a conclusive analysis thereof is much needed as noted in these comments. Gotitbro (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2023 (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  Muhafiz-e-Pakistan was previously checked and found to be on a different continent than Cyber Eyes. Spicy (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * because the last IP edit was in February. Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar language and ethnicity disruption as the previous socks (specifically this sock)). Asking for a CU to further confirm this and weed out other likely existing socks. Gotitbro (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2023 (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

 * ✅, . --Blablubbs (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Brand new account, restored the same sort of pro-Pakistan promotional edits at Uzbeks in Pakistan- and Turkmen in Pakistan- that his other CU blocked socks and IP socks tried to add (aimed at integrating Pakistan with Central Asian peoples and cultures). - LouisAragon (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * More: Here at Tajiks in Pakistan, "TomHarry2023" reinstated the exact same source and figures originally added by CU blocked sock "LearnIndology". - LouisAragon (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it turns out you're not a sock of Cybes.Eyes.2005, you're still someone's. Its impossible a brand new user that registered nine days ago is able to a) cite/fix complex references b) add infoboxes to articles c) ping users d) dig deep down an article's revision history. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats rubbish, "Even if it turns out you're not a sock of Cybes.Eyes.2005, you're still someone's.", I have learnt how to use Wikipedia and the formatting before I started doing my edits. I think you just wanted an excuse to revert all my changes for one reason or another. All information I added was referenced properly. TomHarry2023 (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added information which I believe is valuable. There has not been a Pakistan census since 2017 and there will likely not be one in the near future. The Joshua Project is one of the sites which give estimates of ethnic groups in each country and seems accurate. This is why I have added this information, not sure why you are getting so upset about this. BTW - you can't use CheckUser to pressure other users into accepting your POV, you are not the police here, free platform. The funny thing is, the CheckUser will confirm I am not a sock account, because I am not! TomHarry2023 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Dude, you have just removed info boxes from those article which were informative. All information I added there was referenced. Why did you remove the history sections on the Uzbek in Pakistan Page ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks_in_Pakistan has the same thing. You are the one that has an agenda, removing valid information. TomHarry2023 (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How did I add pro-Pakistan views, the articles are literally Uzbeks in PAKISTAN, of-course I will add stuff which is more related to Pakistan. TomHarry2023 (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Listen, you need to find proof of me being sock before you revert all my changes. Guilty until proven innocent ? @Diannaa please can you check this, I feel this is really unfair. TomHarry2023 (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2023 (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 TomHarry2023 seems unlikely to be a new user, but CU says they're ❌ to Cyber.Eyes.2005 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)