Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Escoperloit/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Editor making same additions as previous socks. Can we have a check for any sleepers? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 2 February 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

 * Given and  this is a duck and can be blocked on that basis, but  for sleepers since we haven't had a check in over a month.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 09:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They're using a different range from the last few socks I checked, but the ISP, geolocation and user agent are identical - combined with the editing, I'm tagging as confirmed. Will request lock, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - There is definitely more here, up to 18 potential socks, but I will need to look more in depth into them. I won't object to a second CU looking at this and then i'll wrap back to it to confirm. as I edit conflicted you. --  Amanda (she/her)  11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll take another look once you've finished your check so see what I missed. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * per below. -- Amanda (she/her)  17:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * to the above and to each other:
 * These confirmed accounts have the same technical data on a large range as the archive. Behavioral analysis should be looked into to see if the two groups are a match. -- Amanda (she/her)  17:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add to the list above. There's not a huge amount to go on in terms of behavioural analysis - each account seems to have been created, used for a few edits, then thrown away. That in itself is something of a pattern though, and coupled with the CU similarities and the similar editing interests, I'm going to block all as suspected.  hasn't edited, but looks a lot like a sleeper, and am including in the blocks.  Girth Summit  (blether)  23:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * to the above and to each other:
 * These confirmed accounts have the same technical data on a large range as the archive. Behavioral analysis should be looked into to see if the two groups are a match. -- Amanda (she/her)  17:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add to the list above. There's not a huge amount to go on in terms of behavioural analysis - each account seems to have been created, used for a few edits, then thrown away. That in itself is something of a pattern though, and coupled with the CU similarities and the similar editing interests, I'm going to block all as suspected.  hasn't edited, but looks a lot like a sleeper, and am including in the blocks.  Girth Summit  (blether)  23:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * to the above and to each other:
 * These confirmed accounts have the same technical data on a large range as the archive. Behavioral analysis should be looked into to see if the two groups are a match. -- Amanda (she/her)  17:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add to the list above. There's not a huge amount to go on in terms of behavioural analysis - each account seems to have been created, used for a few edits, then thrown away. That in itself is something of a pattern though, and coupled with the CU similarities and the similar editing interests, I'm going to block all as suspected.  hasn't edited, but looks a lot like a sleeper, and am including in the blocks.  Girth Summit  (blether)  23:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * to the above and to each other:
 * These confirmed accounts have the same technical data on a large range as the archive. Behavioral analysis should be looked into to see if the two groups are a match. -- Amanda (she/her)  17:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add to the list above. There's not a huge amount to go on in terms of behavioural analysis - each account seems to have been created, used for a few edits, then thrown away. That in itself is something of a pattern though, and coupled with the CU similarities and the similar editing interests, I'm going to block all as suspected.  hasn't edited, but looks a lot like a sleeper, and am including in the blocks.  Girth Summit  (blether)  23:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * to the above and to each other:
 * These confirmed accounts have the same technical data on a large range as the archive. Behavioral analysis should be looked into to see if the two groups are a match. -- Amanda (she/her)  17:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add to the list above. There's not a huge amount to go on in terms of behavioural analysis - each account seems to have been created, used for a few edits, then thrown away. That in itself is something of a pattern though, and coupled with the CU similarities and the similar editing interests, I'm going to block all as suspected.  hasn't edited, but looks a lot like a sleeper, and am including in the blocks.  Girth Summit  (blether)  23:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * to the above and to each other:
 * These confirmed accounts have the same technical data on a large range as the archive. Behavioral analysis should be looked into to see if the two groups are a match. -- Amanda (she/her)  17:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add to the list above. There's not a huge amount to go on in terms of behavioural analysis - each account seems to have been created, used for a few edits, then thrown away. That in itself is something of a pattern though, and coupled with the CU similarities and the similar editing interests, I'm going to block all as suspected.  hasn't edited, but looks a lot like a sleeper, and am including in the blocks.  Girth Summit  (blether)  23:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * These confirmed accounts have the same technical data on a large range as the archive. Behavioral analysis should be looked into to see if the two groups are a match. -- Amanda (she/her)  17:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add to the list above. There's not a huge amount to go on in terms of behavioural analysis - each account seems to have been created, used for a few edits, then thrown away. That in itself is something of a pattern though, and coupled with the CU similarities and the similar editing interests, I'm going to block all as suspected.  hasn't edited, but looks a lot like a sleeper, and am including in the blocks.  Girth Summit  (blether)  23:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New editor restoring the same material as previous socks. Requesting check for sleepers. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 17 February 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)  11:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * geolocates to the same place, but is on a different range. Given the edits, I'm going to block as suspected.
 * When I checked some of the old accounts, I found the following which I'm prepared to say are ✅
 * I'm going to leave this open - I need to run now, last time a deeper dive uncovered a lot of socks. Blocking these ones. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not seeing any more on that range, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave this open - I need to run now, last time a deeper dive uncovered a lot of socks. Blocking these ones. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not seeing any more on that range, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not seeing any more on that range, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
All created within minutes of each other, all of them editing at Sanandaj. A checkuser may reveal other possible dormant socks. DoebLoggs (talk) 13:40, 21 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

 * This is ✅ to Sockpuppet investigations/Escoperloit and I've blocked and tagged a large batch of socks. - could a clerk please do the merge? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. (My first histmerge!) Requested locks, closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yay! Great to see you with admin perms. Dreamy Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
New accounts making same edits as previous socks. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:15, 31 July 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

 * These five are all internally ✅ to each other. Archive is, unfortunately, stale, but I'm willing to call the whole lot proven. Courcelles (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same idiosyncratic wording here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding older account Khatamimp for completeness. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding Jilazana20 per this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also adding Farah89n per this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2024 (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

 * Puriahs1 and Jilazana20 are ✅ to each other; all other accounts are, but the data aligns with historical information. ; no action needed against the stale accounts (please feel free to re-report if they return to activity). Closing. Mz7 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
WP:DUCK (see this). Could we have a check for sleepers? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2024 (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

 * but ✅ to the list above for what it's worth. All visible socks are blocked. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)