Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IgorTurzh/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
GuptaGauptar created largely for rescuing the article created by the Tsans2.

Tsans2 is topic banned. Has good reason to use sock puppets.

GuptaGauptar and IgorTurzh edit warring to add the same rejected content to the above article, which was originally added by Tsans2.

Soon, GuptaGauptar added the link of the above article (Russian fascism (ideology)) to "see also" of What Russia should do with Ukraine which was created by IgorTurzh just 5 days ago.

Tsans2 used to add the link to Russian fascism (ideology) on "see also" sections. NavjotSR (talk) 09:28, 14 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

 * It's an impressive coincidence that the second two users just so happened to find that source in the page history to re-add, and there is certainly an incentive for the creation and use of another account in light of the sanctions imposed on . - Please compare these accounts. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Everybody is ✅. It was impractical to run a sleeper check. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - I've reopened this and endorsed for another CU to take a look. Digger deeper into the CU data after the unblock request at User talk:IgorTurzh a second set of eyes would be a good thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * After consulting with another CU off-wiki, I'm going to AGF and unblock everybody. Socking is still a possibility, but it's not as clear as I thought it was when I first looked at this. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Right when IgorTurzh got off the block, a flow of throw-away socks started to support his position on Talk:Rashism.

This looks like a coordinated attempt to evade scrutiny. NavjotSR (talk) 05:26, 23 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

 * -  Girth Summit  (blether)  16:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The sudden appearance of multiple new accounts to comment on a particular RfC is indeed suspicious, but these four users do not look to be related to one another, technically at least. I can't rule out the possibility that there has been off-wiki coordination going on, but I'll leave that for someone else to consider. (Also noting that I saw the same thing as concerning, and started digging further, but I see that this has been considered already so I'll leave that where it is).   Girth Summit  (blether)  16:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * According to a post further down on the talk page, the article was recently shared on Reddit. That seems like a reasonable explanation for why it would be attracting edits from new users. Someone has already put the canvassing template on the merge proposal, and I doubt whoever closes it will put much stock in drive-by votes from newbies, so I am going to close this without further action. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Spicy I would add more. The article got popularity among western media (not reddit) and it had around 200k views some days both in Ukrainian and English wikipedias. No surprise that many people perhaps just registered to participate in the discussion. IgorTurzh (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)