Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ekpestar/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
On 13 June Ekpestar created Draft:Emma Njoku, it was deleted minutes after as G11, G12. Minutes later they recreated it, and minutes after it was deleted again for the same reasons. It was recreated and deleted for the third time on the same day and the editor blocked for spamming.

The following day a new account Alphaekpe was created and proceeded immediately to recreate Draft:Emma Njoku. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

since you are already dealing with Ekpestar's unblock request you may want to deal with this at the same time? Seems like a duck to me. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:14, 15 June 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 was initially unsure about this one (see this) but I missed the similarity in the usernames ("Ekpe"). Blocked, tagged. DanCherek (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't spot the similar name either! Nice to have that confirmation. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * While reviewing an unblock request from, I ✅ sockpuppetry to based on checkuser data. --Yamla (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Recreated Draft:Emmanuel Njoku - see Draft:Emma Njoku for the history , and Draft:Ubong Nse Thompson. Loud quacking... Less sure of Ansadensiks but the account was created just when Ekpestar was blocked and edited Sonnia Agu before Dukology. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:46, 9 October 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

 * - Can these be technically linked as that make a stronger argument. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - The overlap itself is strong (low edit count with overlap in draft). They also share the same very rare and narrow timecard. The connection is fairly clear. Please, block them as suspected. This is not a CU decline: no objection if a CU runs a check to confirm or look for sleepers. MarioGom (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with . There are several different piece of evidence which all point in the same direction, and all added together they leave no room for doubt, so I have blocked and tagged the accounts. I am restoring the checkuser request that UtherSRG made, so that a clerk or CU can review the request; I am expressing no opinion about the request. JBW (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * CU isn't particularly helpful here. They are jumping around some exceedingly socky, spammy ranges. The connection to this case is certainly, but as far as CU is concerned it could be one of any number of sockmasters. Both accounts are blocked, closing without further action.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)