Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epiphytes/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * Both accounts are promoting paid-for-spam Ehraz Ahmed which was a client of User:Epiphytes, now blocked for socking. Socks with similar edit patterns with are User:Walterdallas and User:Georgekeith338. Possibility of sleepers since last block so requesting a CU. Ninjaediator (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The very first edit of after creating account is to find their way to fix a reference to the promotion added by sock  and more. Ninjaediator (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * My side of the Story:-


 * I learned about the subject from his frequent security findings insignificant sites, like Truecaller & Airtel.
 * I initially discovered his Wikipedia page, but when I reopened it the next time, it was deleted and had a very promotional draft. I wanted to help, and his article was the first that I started my journey with and with the help of admins in the live chat.
 * Just because I started my first edit with the subject doesn't make me connected to him in any way. Similar to his, I have written two more biographies that i discovered through media or books.
 * And the subject has minimal pictures on the web. I searched everywhere was not able to find one, and luckily after a search on Wikicommons, I was able to find an image that later i attached it in the article.
 * If you search his name on Wikipedia, you will find articles that are mentioning the subject's name, and that is how I was able to find these articles. Again they all were having grammatical errors and incorrect citations. I fixed those. But that doesn't mean that I am a paid editor or a stock user. I can also identify my personal identity to any Wikipedia admin.

Thanks.- Tatupiplu'talk 12:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not just me who think you might have a COI. Ninjaediator (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand why everyone thinks that, but I've answered the COI request as well just a few weeks back on my talk page as it was archived, and it was too early for me at that time to figure out how Wikipedia works, and it had filed. But I am willing to co-operate with the admins to verify the allegations against me. If you look at all my edits, None of them are promotional or paid in any way. COI was because I was editing an existing draft that was promotional and making minor edits, but I took help from the admins in the live chat. You can also find me active every day in the live chat helping users and even asking questions. -Tatupiplu'talk 14:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not find your answer on the your talk page. Could you please provide the diff? Anyway, if you are not related then you have nothing to worry about the CU or SPI. Ninjaediator (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It's worth noting for convenience that the previously confirmed socks in this case are:
 * ST47 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ST47 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ST47 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ST47 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ST47 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ST47 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ST47 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ST47 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)