Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/It's gonna be awesome/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both users show interest in articles like North-South divide in Taiwan. Page history reveals similar patterns between these users, such as prefer to save a page for multiple times in a row to fix typos instead of using the preview function. More importantly, It's gonna be awesome has already been blocked for sockpuppet abuses. Techyan （Talk） 11:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I am skeptical about whether Poiu1234567890 is a sock of It's gonna be awesome or not. The behavior of this user on zhwiki does not look like IGBA. I suspect they just happened to share the same IP address on a cellular network. -- Techyan （Talk） 16:00, 22 October 2019 (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
✅ + . . Based on the confirmed cross-wiki abuse, I think we should globally lock the master and these two accounts (one earlier puppet is already globally locked).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why Poiu1234567890 was blocked on zh.wiki?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The logged reason for this was "confirmed [by behavioral evidence] a sockpuppet" of someone previously edited in the same article. As there is no local CheckUser right on zhwiki, admins use judges based on behavior more often. The only visible edit made by this user is adding false information (claiming someone raped others) in the article, in which, considering the topic of the article and the fact that this is straight-up vandalizing, it just doesn't seem like something IGBA would do. The admin on zhwiki didn't specify who was operating this account, but it should be some random IPs down the editing history that were "adding similar false information." -- Techyan （Talk） 18:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The user hasn't made any contributions here, but based on your explanation, I've unblocked them, and this will also prevent a possibly unfair global lock. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (noted, thanks) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Should I asssume that you don't think that the master and Scramble for dash should be globally locked?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being unclear; yes. The Meta results are not conclusive with other suspected socks, so I'll leave the accounts unlocked for now and let the local communities handle them as they see fit. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With that clarification we're done here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Editor interaction utility 2 • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * All users show interest in articles like North-South divide in Taiwan. Most of the edit from Formosa's_storyteller is in North-South divide in Taiwan. Half of edit from Susceptible_to_abscess is also in North-South divide in Taiwan. They edits North-South divide in Taiwan after 24 October 2019, the time when another sockpuppet "Scramble for dash" is banned.
 * It's gonna be awesome and Formosa's_storyteller request help to improve the article/drafts they build in my talk pages. (Formosa's_storyteller's request, It's gonna be awesome's request). I'm not very active in English Wikipedia. They are the only 2 users request help in my talk page.


 * It's gonna be awesome has already been blocked for sockpuppet abuses on 16 July 2019‎ .--Wolfch (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2019 (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

 * Group 1 – the following accounts are ✅:
 * Formosa's storyteller
 * Group 2 – the following accounts are ✅ to each other and to Group 1:
 * Susceptible to abscess
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * This user and It's gonna be awesome show similiar interest in articles like
 * North-South divide in Taiwan (Envisaging tier is the top 4th editors in this article. The top 3 editors are It's gonna be awesome, Formosa's storyteller and Scramble for dash.)
 * medical articles(like Cholinesterase inhibitor. It's gonna be awesome's sockpuppets user:Convulsion fizzled and user:Exert yourself also edited this article).
 * It's gonna be awesome has already been blocked for sockpuppet abuses on 16 July 2019. Envisaging tier edits North-South divide in Taiwan after 21 December 2019, the time after previous sockpuppet "Formosa's storyteller" is banned. --Wolfch (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked and tagged based on behavior. Unclear if we still need the CU at this point.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, no other accounts seen. ST47 (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Working on the same topics as the original account specifically cholinesterase inhibitors and Taiwan. Same type of concerning edits such as Obviously also knows Chinese. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 20 January 2020 (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

 * The usernames seem in-line with the usernames that this user has created before. I also see that both users have been editing using Wikiplus. These two edits here and here show the addition of the exact same definition to UPCR by both users where six months have gone by between the edits by the two accounts. This, along with similar edit summary usage and the editing of the same exact areas within the same articles between one another, lead me to conclude that there's enough behavioral evidence to assert that the reported account is a sock puppet. Indef'd, tagged, closing SPI report...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Pretty obvious sock. Started editing right after the last sock was blocked. Quirky sentence case username, editing same subjects as previous socks (medical articles and China/Taiwan), reinstating a sock's edit here  and here. First edit was to install Wikiplus (all previous socks of this user have used Wikiplus). SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, just see where the albumin/creatinine ratio is redirected to... and I explained the reason for the username on my talk page... My edits focused on chemistry, headline news such as the outbreak of the novel coronavirus and the linking out medical articles, and improved some layouts... We really need more love rather than prejudice here... --Every inherent nuance of the dummy&#39;s prudence (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2020 (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, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I am not sure who may be the sock puppeteer for this account, however there is clear evidence that they have had an extensive history editing on Wikipedia. The account was only created on January 23, 2020, however as seen here, , , the user has cited specific Wikipedia rules clearly showing they have previous knowledge of editing here. The user has also continuously been deleting a map of Greater China stating that "Taiwan is not a part of China" despite the fact that multiple users have told him that the map is of Greater China, which does in fact include Taiwan. Also after I directly asked the user whether or not they have previously used Wikipedia with other accounts, they refused to answer saying "I feel such a question is so personal and private." Ratherous (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2020 (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
✅ to. Blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * probably best that this report is hist merged into Sockpuppet investigations/It's gonna be awesome to keep it all in one place. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Case moved from Discern irony to It's gonna be awesome —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Similar name to previous socks (user:Discern irony and user:Every inherent nuance of the dummy's prudence) editing Similar subjects as previous socks (medical articles and talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak )--Wolfch (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2020 (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, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

16 February 2020
}

Suspected sockpuppets

 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Similar naming rule (several words with space) to previous socks (Irony of prudent premise, Discern irony, Every inherent nuance of the dummy's prudence ......)
 * Editing Similar subjects as previous socks (medical articles).
 * The account is build on 5 February 2020, about the day that previous sockpuppet Irony of prudent premise was blocked.
 * Familiar to the edits from User:Envisaging tier and user:It's gonna be awesome and send one warn and one Wikipedia:Harassment
 * Familiar to the edits from User:Envisaging tier and user:It's gonna be awesome and send one warn and one Wikipedia:Harassment

--Wolfch (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2020 (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

 * - Please provide more diffs on "familiar edits" -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Created one day after the last account,, was blocked. Editing the same subjects (medical articles, especially relating to the brain) - it's telling when you look at the two accounts' contributions side by side:. Back-to back editing with socks, see the history of Choroid plexus and Secretomotor. Asking detailed questions about sources at WikiProject Medicine as is typical of these socks: compare this account to  and. Typical username consisting of a phrase in sentence case. WP:DUCK. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Yup definitely a concern. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Repeating same edits as previous sock Opaque nociceptive neurons. Quack.  Grey joy talk 07:15, 6 April 2020 (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

 * . based on behavior. ST47 (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same interests as previous socks (medical articles, Taiwan-related articles, etc.). Also, according to this edit,, which was tagged as a confirmed sockpuppet, requested a username change to Reciprocater back in February, only for it to be declined. Reciprocater started editing the day after A flatulence-relieved loud, satisfied belch was blocked. They've also shown interest in National Fengshan Senior High School as well as Donepezil  and List of One Piece characters. See also Sockpuppet investigations/It's gonna be awesome/Archive. I also suspect it might be an obvious WP:DUCK, given the similarities and behavioral evidence. I will add some more evidence if it's requested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I would have to respectfully disagree with you on the point regarding your concerns, perhaps reconsider WP:dispute resolution would be a better idea? I do appreciate your effort in editing the article and taking the time to discuss that topic. --Reciprocater (Talk) 06:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The User name is probably an coincidence. At least, they don't share WP:DISRUPT:disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia.
 * What Wikipedia is not:Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear.
 * Don't be prejudiced:We see many similarities and differences between editors. Sometimes we even see users who are too similar. Sometimes our experiences with certain users can make us prejudiced and stereotypical.
 * Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia: A genuine interest in improving the encyclopedic content (articles and media). This often involves a wide range of interests, and substantive edits/article writing or other significant activities (e.g., coding, patrolling, or wikignoming). It may also include significant constructive improvements to the processes that are involved in improving content, or mitigating and reducing problems that make a negative contribution to Wikipedia. Yes, I do!
 * Don%27t_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet: There are many situations that occur on Wikipedia in which one may assume that one or more accounts are sockpuppets. Something is really fishy. All the signs are present, it seems. The suspecting editor may find that the suspected user's behavior looks all too familiar and resembles that of someone who already exists. But this is not always the case. There are many good faith behaviors that have a lot in common with sock puppetry and are totally unavoidable and are actually helpful. It is important to assume good faith whenever possible and not jump to the conclusion that sock puppetry is occurring just because one or more signs are present. Only when editing is extremely disruptive may it be necessary to open a sock puppet investigation.
 * WP:BUILDWP: A major pillar of Wikipedia is that it is both an encyclopedia and a community of editors who build it. This means that an editor is here primarily to help improve encyclopedia articles and content, and to provide constructive input into communal discussions and processes aimed at improving the project and the quality of our content, and do so in line with the project's intended boundaries, guidelines, and wider mission – and within compliance of Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Because Wikipedia is a collaborative community, editors whose personal agendas and actions appear to conflict with its purpose risk having their editing privileges removed.
 * I made substantial edits at Angiotensin-converting_enzyme_2 for the sake of Wikipedia and people's health.
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine is ongoing.
 * User_talk:Sergecross73 & User_talk:AngusWOOF, & leaving farewell on a respected Checkuser's talk page made me think of Canvassing.
 * Sockpuppet_investigations:You must provide this evidence in a clear way. Vaguely worded submissions will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable.
 * WP:Consensus:it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. Using an alternative persona ("sock puppet", or "sock") to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden.
 * WP:DUCK:The "duck test" is meant to be used for internal processes within Wikipedia. For example, consider that "User:Example" is engaged in a heated dispute with someone else, and gets blocked because of it. Immediately after, a "User:Example2" registers on Wikipedia and continues the dispute right away, saying the same things and in the same tone. The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. This is not what happened at Talk:List_of_One_Piece_characters, which is an article content dispute.
 * requested a username change to Reciprocater, only for it to be declined What I infer from that talk page is that the User was acting in accordance with two admin's guidance.
 * Consensus: a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. rather than allegations. We are anticipated to show as much tolerance as we can to opposing viewpoints and to approaches and reactions with which we do not agree, per WP:civility.
 * given the similarities and behavioral evidence. My behavior doesn't seem to be like the behavior of the alleged users in the context of Dispute. Name me a behavior of me that matches the alleged users' behavior when it comes to dispute resolution.
 * So please, take a few hours away, maybe until tomorrow. Rethink how you should approach a content dispute, then come back here. I appreciate your consideration.


 * You will please note that I'm a regular, established editor who has edited 2006 with over 88,000 edits to my credit. I only want to get the situation resolved peacefully. I'm still a little suspicious, given the editor's history. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to kindly remind you of When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual Wikipedia norm. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute, perPlease_do_not_bite_the_newcomers and Don't_call_a_spade_a_spade.
 * I know and I don't mean to upset newcomers around here. Anyway, we'll see what the SPI tells us. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. I feel like you haven't provided the evidence of "extremely disruptive behavior", per Don%27t_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet: Only when editing is extremely disruptive may it be necessary to open a sock puppet investigation. Wikipedia_is_a_volunteer_service, they're busy and may not respond to every inquiry. Regards. --Reciprocater (Talk) 09:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help that the editor uses the same arguments as the sock regarding adding Celestial Dragons to North-South divide in Taiwan "Restore Wikipedia:Vandalism:The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia"    notice the core content policies verbiage which is repeated in the talk page for List of One Piece characters.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 09:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh! You seemed familiar with that user's long past history. Could we focus on the content dispute over Celestial dragon, please? --Reciprocater (Talk) 09:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's one of my concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Although AngusWOOF was invited by Lord Sjones23 to join, raising concerns over WP:canvassing and WP:meat, we should really need to Assume good faith.Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.--Reciprocater (Talk) 09:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would asking me be considered canvassing? I look over List of One Piece characters and have used that as a ref for many character lists in WT:ANIME. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 09:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, User_talk:AngusWOOF is why I am concerned. --Reciprocater (Talk) 09:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Policies_and_guidelines:Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia We should really need to respect the rule of policies and guidelines.}} --Reciprocater (Talk) 09:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your excessive inline quoting of WP policies also matches the behavior of those socks. They would (WP:THIS AND THAT) a lot. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 10:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why I repeatedly invited you to focus on improving the article celetial dragon but you continued to talk about me or kinds of stuffs like that? --Reciprocater (Talk)  10:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your excessive inline quoting of WP policies also matches the behavior of those socks. They would (WP:THIS AND THAT) a lot. Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack. --Reciprocater (Talk) 10:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:Opaque nociceptive neurons note the WP policy usage plus the green font for quoting the editors back. That a big enough WP:DUCK for you?  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 10:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidence, please? I learned such use from other users. Can you prove there're only two Wikipedian adopts such use? I am not going to responding to your vague accusations. --Reciprocater (Talk)  10:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How is utilizing tq constitute duck? --Reciprocater (Talk) 10:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You will please note that I'm a regular, established editor who has edited 2006 with over 88,000 edits to my credit. I only want to get the situation resolved peacefully. I'm still a little suspicious, given the editor's history. Lord Sjones23 But what I see is that they tend to cite WP:DUCK to judge everythihng. So disappointed. --Reciprocater (Talk) 10:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The user's edit summary is Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet of User:It's gonna be awesome. Why're you so determined? You're an experienced Wikipedian and I surmise that you knew your accusations were vague. --Reciprocater (Talk)  10:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I was asked to look into this. While I don’t know if it’s as clear as a WP:DUCK block, I do think it’s worth a checkuser. Browsing through their talk page comments, the accounts definitely share a similar style of responding to criticism. It’s very long winded and cites a lot of policy that is only tangentially related to the situation, and often doesn’t really help their argument. It’s too coincidental when you factor in restoring the other accounts edits. Sergecross73  msg me  13:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a spectacularly good explanation forthcoming very quickly, I'm inclined to block as a straightforward WP:DUCK case. Given the crossover with User:Recap&perforate in terms of even the most obscure topics of interest like Donepezil, this one seems obvious. &#8209; Iridescent 18:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t object to this approach either. Sergecross73   msg me  19:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In light of this—the page in question being yet another IGBA target—I've blocked as an obvious sock. I'll leave this SPI open pending a CU, as if past history is anything to go by there will be more accounts in the drawer that will need to be tracked down. &#8209; Iridescent 08:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - Please confirm & check for sleepers. Please, before Reciprocater drowns us in another ten thousand words. Cabayi (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Along with previously confirmed socks, one other account found: . -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Woundful displays IGBA's characteristic interest in medical topics and North-South divide in Taiwan. Before the latter article was protected for sockpuppetry, the majority of its edits were from confirmed socks, , and. See also crossover with the master account and  on Cholinergic,  and the fact that this account found their way to Doc James' talk page on their second day of editing. 

I also think is related, because they are strongly interested in medical articles, they made major edits to Nasolacrimal duct within the same time frame as Woundful (last edit by Concurred  07:54, 8 May 2020, first edit by Woundful 10:18, 8 May 2020), and they use the same distinctive citation style: compare  and.
 * Oh, and the same habit of bickering with people at sockpuppet investigations; see previous reports in the archive, e.g. . As well as the fact that they found this report within half an hour when they were never pinged. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Feel free to do whatever you like with your time. At least, I think my time is precious. Best. Woundful (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * " Concurred is related because they are strongly interested in medical articles,"
 * That user just created a few hours ago, how did you know this user must be strongly interested in medical articles? Woundful (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That user just created a few hours ago, how did you know this user must be strongly interested in medical articles? Woundful (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Checkuser to confirm and look for sleepers. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Doc James is famous and has his own article. Woundful (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , User:Iztwoz also edited cholinergic. Woundful (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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


 * User:Dalba. I am afraid that your citer has been weaponized...... I think there are a lot of Wikipedians choosing your tool no matter they're new or old. To other parties, history will record what you do. Woundful (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Watchlist is a thing. This is a very vague accusation.

If Watchlist+Citer qualifies a check, then floodgate opens..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woundful (talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Both confirmed + blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Username is a phrase in sentence case, userpage is all about China and Taiwan, the account was created a day after the last socks were blocked, they are editing articles related to nasal anatomy like was before they were blocked, and they are popping up on prominent medical editors' talkpages on their second day here. It's like they're trying to get caught. If you need a diff, see this:  SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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


 * My only response is that please stop fishing. I am strongly interested in your motive. Are you planning to run for an adminship? I believe either you or admins deserves better than this mess. Period. --The comings and goings (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅. . Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Mass restoration of sock's previous verbiage on controversial article North–South divide in Taiwan. Seems to be the only article contributed to. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:25, 15 May 2020 (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
Technically on the more confirmed side of likely, blocked. . -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


Mass restoration of sock's previous edit on controversial article North–South divide in Taiwan.--Wolfch (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * I think your behavior is actually controversial. I restored the version back to administrator Keith D's and you accused me of massive restoration of sock. Stop playing trick. Check User should not be used by the party among a controversy to revenge or weaponize against another side. Undertake the enormity of remedial work (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I found that Wolfch has been on Wikipedia for decade! It must be a common sense to him/her that "Check User is strickly forbidden to be weaponized." Undertake the enormity of remedial work (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I unveiled Wolfch's prior trick at Talk:North–South_divide_in_Taiwan as he stuck to his viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Wolfch is quite suspicious as being the only editor who follows specific editor's past edits even though the community has already moved on to other productive area. This makes me thnk of single use account. Undertake the enormity of remedial work (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed North-South divide in Taiwan from Special:Recent Changes and realized that you deleted tens of thousands of bytes in just one day. By walking through Talk:North–South divide in Taiwan, we know that Wolfch's view is nearly one-sided in favor of deletion. I don't think it's a normal discussion and ranked as Wolfch's most active participated discussion ever, I assume. Wikipedia is not a place for manipulation. Undertake the enormity of remedial work (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2020 (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

 * ✅ to, . -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * Mass restoration of sock's previous edit on controversial article North–South divide in Taiwan.


 * During the restoration, restore a reference of PeoPo. Dormantor, Acclimatize to wonderland (previous sock) also have opinions that Peopo is reliable Talk:North–South_divide_in_Taiwan, which is different from the discussion in Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293
 * Agile Agility edits other article first. and edit North–South divide in Taiwan after 4 days passed, similar to the behavior of Undertake_the_enormity_of_remedial_work (edits other articles first, and edit North–South divide in Taiwan after 5 days passed . Both show strong interest on North–South_divide_in_Taiwan--Wolfch (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2020 (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
✅. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

ST47 (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2020 (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

 * ✅, . ST47 (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

He said I have Conflict of interest with Chen Yi-ming because I add content without reference or without quoting references. It is similiar to what user:Afoot post hoc (another sockpuppet) did in Chang Yi (movie director) --Wolfch (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I'd suspect this too. Will notify user of SPI. Ed6767  talk!  16:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * This user promoted 6-hour day and cite "The root cause of developed countries' low birth rate is Eight-hour day, e.g. money-rich, time-poor, motherhood penalty." in his/her sandbox page. The same setance also appears on Woundful's previous user page. Woundful is a sockpuppet of It's gonna be awesome. (By the way, I try to search "The root cause of developed countries' low birth rate is Eight-hour day, e.g. money-rich, time-poor, motherhood penalty." in Google. There is not result.)


 * user:It's gonna be awesome is banned because CheckUser evidence confirms that they have repeatedly abused multiple accounts.


 * Woundful edited Six-hour day . Six-hour day is also appeared in Deep humility's sandbox page User:Deep_humility/sandbox


 * Woundful edited Money-rich,_time-poor . it is also appeared in Deep humility's sandbox page User:Deep_humility/sandbox


 * Woundful said there is an advocacy concern about my edit in Chen_Yi-min . It is similiar to (W) Stalking's behavoir . (W) Stalking is another sockpuppet of It's gonna be awesome.--Wolfch (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This user and Reciprocater (another sockpuppet) have the similiar behavior to leave many messages about Wikipedia's policies in Sockpuppet investigations Reciprocater's message--Wolfch (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This user started edit on 12 June 2020, the day after previous sockpuppet user:(W) Stalking is banned.--Wolfch (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This user and user:Tardy1930 (another sockpuppet) have lots of edit in Russell_Barkley --Wolfch (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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


 * False narrative, WP:fishing, and CheckUser_policy:The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position). --Deep humility (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:CheckUser § Complaints and misuse: This will in particular happen if checks are done routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so (links and proofs of bad behavior should be provided). Deep humility (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Terms of use:
 * Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud
 * Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation;
 * With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;
 * Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive; and
 * Engaging in fraud.
 * Terms of use: We do not take an editorial role: Because the Wikimedia Projects are collaboratively edited, all of the content that we host is provided by users like yourself, and we do not take an editorial role.
 * Executive-order-preventing-online-censorship: When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep humility (talk • contribs) 05:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users: Privacy is critical to sustaining freedom of expression and association, enabling knowledge and ideas to thrive. We strive to protect and preserve those values for the people who contribute their time, energy, and knowledge to Wikimedia projects. The Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to protecting the privacy of readers and editors, allowing them to contribute clear, fact-based, and uncensored knowledge to the platforms we host.--Deep humility (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Ugh, not this again. I think this reaction is more characteristic of the sock behavior. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅, . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

In Chinese Wikipedia this is a suspected sock. GZWDer (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2020 (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

 * - ST47 (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These accounts are ✅:
 * , requesting locks. ST47 (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , requesting locks. ST47 (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , requesting locks. ST47 (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , requesting locks. ST47 (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

ST47 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (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

 * ✅, . ST47 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets





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

User has a similar interest in the controversial article North–South divide in Taiwan as with IGBA's previous blocked accounts. The username is also a phrase in sentence case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Now he's back as, which restored the sock's edits to that article immediately after that sock was blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:58, 12 November 2020 (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

 * ✅. Indef'd and tagged.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Nothing left to do here, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Obvious duck. restored content that other socks previously tried to insert here and here. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Note: indeffed by as a duck based on WP:AIV report.  Java Hurricane  13:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to note: lock requested at SRG.  Java Hurricane  14:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing as already blocked and tagged. Dreamy Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Best, Blablubbs | talk 14:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Installed Headbomb's unreliable.js in their second edit (compare Special:Permalink/960666667 and Special:Permalink/955697435)
 * Use of the pre-filled edit summaries, similar to Deep humility
 * Interest in medical topics, like e.g. Reciprocater and the aforementioned Deep humility.
 * Somewhat familiar username pattern.

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
Confirmed, along with: -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added tags. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Random IP with zero edits pinged me to the talk page for North–South divide in Taiwan after I made some small edits to the page while bizarrely thanking me for my interest in the page, what I removing was massively overwrought in section see also and whatnot. They then claim to have created Loaded Question? and continued to ping me to the talk page to dispute every single edit as well as the edit of another editor. I thought this was weird so I went into the page history to see who had added the things I removed, I found It's gonna be awesome (page creator and #1 editor) and a sock Formosa's storyteller (#2 editor). This led me to suspect that the IP/new user I was dealing with was not in fact a new user and was It's gonna be awesome, the new account then proceeded to demonstrate a near complete mastery of wikipedia policy and procedure albeit applied in a most disruptive way. When I asked whether they had edited wikipedia before they slapped an off topic discussion warning template on my user talk page which I must say it is extremely precocious for an account with so few edits... TLDR it clucks like a duck, it looks like a duck, and its being disruptive. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

, this guy was not very subtle. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2021 (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

 * No opinion on the IP, and no opinion on whether this is the correct master or not, but I've blocked LQ? as an obvious sock of somebody, intending to harass HEB. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * IP hasn't edited in a while, the rest is handled below. Closing. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 11:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New user displaying a high degree of skill and making edits “per talk page” opinion of the now blocked Loaded Question? ‎Easy call. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Added Simenody, only edit was restoring sections of the talk page removed by CMD. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I think this user is a sockpuppet of It's gonna be awesome. The quotation "像用這種分配的新方法，便可以省去商人所賺的佣錢......" is restored by Ardent pacifist at this time. That was added by Envisaging tier (another sockpuppet) . The parts restored by Ardent pacifist are similiar.--Wolfch (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted their edits per WP:BANREVERT. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - this seems ducky given the master's obsession with North–South divide in Taiwan, but there are often sleepers to be found here, so a check makes sense. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 08:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Loaded Question?, Life is short so let us live it to the fullest!, Stringent Checker
 * Ardent pacifist
 * ✅ Simenody & StateOfVisChicks, but ❌ to the above. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Convenience links for the additional accounts:
 * – please (re-)block the confirmed accounts plus Ardent pacifist, whose behaviour is convincing enough (obviously not a new user, partial reinstatement of sock edits, implementing the master's wishes from the talk page...). for that group. Splitting out the two unrelated ones who don't seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia and solely created to follow CMD around, see . Thanks.  --Blablubbs&#124;talk 11:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The other two are now at Sockpuppet investigations/StateOfVisChicks. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 11:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – please (re-)block the confirmed accounts plus Ardent pacifist, whose behaviour is convincing enough (obviously not a new user, partial reinstatement of sock edits, implementing the master's wishes from the talk page...). for that group. Splitting out the two unrelated ones who don't seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia and solely created to follow CMD around, see . Thanks.  --Blablubbs&#124;talk 11:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The other two are now at Sockpuppet investigations/StateOfVisChicks. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 11:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – please (re-)block the confirmed accounts plus Ardent pacifist, whose behaviour is convincing enough (obviously not a new user, partial reinstatement of sock edits, implementing the master's wishes from the talk page...). for that group. Splitting out the two unrelated ones who don't seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia and solely created to follow CMD around, see . Thanks.  --Blablubbs&#124;talk 11:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The other two are now at Sockpuppet investigations/StateOfVisChicks. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 11:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Everyone now locked. Tagged, closing. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 14:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See userpage. DUCK. Pahunkat (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)




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

A "new" user which sends messages on talk:North–South divide in Taiwan about the excess citations I removed in North–South divide in Taiwan and send Template:uw-delete3 on user talk:Wolfch. This user looks like a sockpuppet instead of a new user--Wolfch (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are serveral warning messages generated from user:It's gonna be awesome's sockpuppets in the User talk:Wolfch. Many sockpuppets' edits are focus on North–South divide in Taiwan

--Wolfch (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2021 (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

 * Just a political prisoner and Anti-crackdown are both ✅ to the previous socks identified in the 13 May 2021 report plus . ., closing. Mz7 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The latest account to pop up on North-South divide in Taiwan, which was created by It's gonna be awesome and further edited by their sockpuppets, most recently. CMD (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

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


 * This user is similiar to the Wikipedia rule and doesn't seem to be a new user. This user removes all the warning template on the article. The behaviors are similiar to those of previous sockpuppets--Wolfch (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The suspected sock also posted user-generated warning messages on my talk page as well, similar to the indef-blocked sock . I think it's very likely a WP:DUCK. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I concur that this is not a new user. They also leave expert-level edit summaries about policy or the lack thereof, just as the previous blocked user It's gonna be awesome did: example. --- Possibly &#9742; 16:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - as the kids say, "sus". Please confirm + sleeper check. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ to previous socks. A sleeper check wasn't easy due to the range being so wide (as well as widely used), but that I could find. Bagging and tagging sock, and closing SPI...  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   10:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
American value is a brand new editor who is apparently very very peeved off that It's gonna be awesome et al's pet project North-South divide in Taiwan has been given a good scrubbing. Obvious duck is obvious. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * No mainspace edits, yet has knowledge of content dispute involving known socks of at North–South divide in Taiwan and is editing related content in their userspace Polyamorph (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit WP:DUCKy although it's hard to tell with no main space edits. I'd advocate for some WP:ROPE given that the editor's participation so far has not been disruptive and seems like an attempt to self-educate. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I blocked separate to seeing the report. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Very per previous checks on range(s)., but need a second opinion on a technical link to another account — TNT (talk • she/her) 18:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Pro forma. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:44, 15 July 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

 * (Very) to each other and to past socks; behaviour fits too. CUs please see  for notes., , closing.  --Blablubbs (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)