Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Infinity Knight/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The account Galkalam has 1 revision made one minute after its creation. The account was made 13:17 on Nov 27, 2020, and made the revision at 13:18 on Nov 27, 2020. What raised suspicion was the sudden creation and revision by this account, and a very similar behavior and wording being used between Galkalam and Infinity Knight, with Galkalam making the same type of action as Infinity Knight's previous action on the article of reverting. After a revision and related Talk section and justification made by the Administrator Zero0000, Infinity Knight reverted it in less than an hour after Zero0000's revision with the reason "Restore sourced relevant info". . Later, the Galkalam account was created and reverted a revision about 15 hours after the revision with the reason "Restoring sourced content". The revert revision by Galkalam also includes content reverted by Infinity Knight, essentially the suspected "puppet" acting in support of the "puppeteer".

Later, on December 8, an IP address of 185.32.179.56 's first activity on Wikipedia was two reverts one minute apart, one of them to revert again on the same article. 

From the above sources and diffs, three things are evident. First, the action of creating the Galkalam account for the sole purpose of reverting a change immediately after account creation is suspicious, along with the subsequent revert by the IP address with only two contributions. Secondly, the behavior of reverting changes, presumably as soon as the changes were observed by the suspected same user of these two accounts, was consistent between the two accounts as evidenced in the above diffs, with both the Galkalam account and 185.32.179.56 reverting in support of what Infinity Knight had reverted previously. Thirdly, the wording in the revision messages is very similar, ie. "restoring/restore" "sourced" "info" / "content". Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
You wrote: "There's no way we're going to block an account with a single edit"

Maybe you missed it, but it is Infinity Knight who is the sockpuppeteer, not Galkalam. Galkalam (which has a single edit) is the sockpuppet account. First, it was Infinity Knight who reverted a change by admin (Zero0000) intervention because they didn't like it. Then created a sockpuppet account with one edit to revert it again. Then did so a third time. According to Wikipedia policy, that's as obvious as sockpuppetry gets. Feel free to ask for clarification if it's still not clear. Thanks. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Same geolocation, but different user agents and ISP.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Closing with no action taken. There's no way we're going to block an account with a single edit, especially given only a "possible" CU finding.  And, the IP hasn't edited in almost a month, so not going to do anything there.  I do note that Saucysalsa30 is mentioned in Sockpuppet investigations/DesertPanther.  It's certainly possible this is unrelated editors who are trying to use SPI to win battles. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith, I wouldn't be surprised. Saucy's talk page comments demonstrate a serious amount of condescension. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence can be seen in the cu log. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:16, 24 November 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

 * is to ✅ to . Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)