Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Felixandrew26/Archive

05 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Recreated Teejay after puppetmaster was banned. Bazj (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Felixandrew26 was a sleeper account which had just done enough to earn autoconfirmed and dodge the restriction on recreating the article. There appear to be a number of other Felixandrew s waiting for this sock to be blocked...
 * (created ages ago and less likely than the other two)
 * but none of them appear to have acted yet. Bazj (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * but none of them appear to have acted yet. Bazj (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * but none of them appear to have acted yet. Bazj (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "The only commonality is location"... and recreating the same article with pretty much the same content. Quack! Bazj (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2015 (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

 * and are technically between ❌ and . The only commonality is location.
 * , the only other listed non-stale account, is ❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my comment. The only commonality revealed by the CU is location. I wasn't commenting on behavioral evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin action needed - Similar usernames + creating the same article + CheckUser findings + not a single useful edit from this group = Both the sock (Felixandrew1326) and the master (Felixandrew26) should be indeffed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, has one deleted edit. Can an admin tell us what kind of edit it is and whether it reveals any connection to other accounts?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * the deleted edit by Felixandrew is for an article titled "Linkopedia" and appears unrelated. I've blocked Felixandrew1326 as a sock account. I've left the master account unblocked for now but have left a warning and will monitor it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

17 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:FelixWiki26 created Teejay (singer) on 6 July, the same day Teejay was deleted & today created Teejay Arunachalam, a variant on the name FA26's Teejenthan Arunachalam and according to CorenBot, recovered from deletionpedia.org. Following Special:WhatLinksHere/Teejay suggests that he's also used a number of IPs, User talk:106.208.117.52, User talk:106.208.250.109, and User talk:106.208.35.249. The other users listed at the what links page haven't been used since 2009 and are likely to relate to another TJ. Bazj (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2015 (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 socks and pupeteer. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tagged, closing. Mike V • Talk 17:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Recreation of autobiography at Teejay. for (talk)  09:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Sure that it's the same person? They have significant other contributions.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have the tools to be sure. All I have is a note of previous sock behaviour on this title, a vague notion that it seems similar to an article I saw a year ago, and a sense of responsibility to request investigation by those who do have admin/cu tools. Your comments in the article's logs suggest my suspicions may be misplaced and that Teejay has TWO wiki-aware fans. for (talk)  07:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like the prior socks/accounts here very pretty much single purpose accounts. This one doesn't, maybe they have been editing elsewhere as a camouflage tactic but we'd need a CU to give an idea of this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , if you're not seeing any commonality between the two creations of Teejay, and given that the older one is a year ago, I'm guessing it'll be too stale for any CU, in which case I'm happy for the SPI to be killed off at your (or any clerk's) discretion. If so, I have 4 G5's outstanding on his articles which need removing, and Teejay probably needs a new A7 tag or AfD nomination. for (talk)  11:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, the previous deleted revisions and the current page revision are fairly different.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Newly created article is not the same as previously deleted. I'm closing this because of the lack of evidence.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)