Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kokikoki2011/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Three WP:SPAs, all editing about an entity called D Television Media Network.


 * All three created the empty category "Category:D Television Media Network"
 * First sock adding category ; blocked on Turkish Wikipedia for promotional editing, and getting warnings for the same on Arabic Wikipedia
 * Second sock was was already blocked as WP:CORPNAME

Requesting CU to check for sleepers. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 24 May 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

 * I added Hamudi Seyf and محمود سيف1 from the history of Draft:D Television Media Network. - enough accounts here that a sleeper check is reasonable.  Spicy (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite a nest of sleepers you caused to be unearthed. Findings:
 * All named accounts are to
 * ✅ to
 * to the following (let's see if I can avoid duplicates):
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * to the following, but I'm breaking these out into a separate group for CU technical reasons:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:
 * , but without behavioural evidence, I suggest leaving these alone:


 * I have taken no direct action other than investigate. Clerks and admins, I welcome constructive feedback on making my findings more comprehensible or actionable. --Yamla (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fun. - please indef ChopChopNinja2014, Melody Aflam TV, and all accounts in the two 'Highly likely' groups.  Many of these accounts have not edited, but the ones who have are creating similar TV hoaxes (sometimes cross-wiki), and the zero-edit sleepers are clearly connected to each other based on the username patterns. I've moved this case to the oldest account in those groups. Agree with leaving the 'possible' accounts alone for now. Thanks,  Spicy (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I went with "proven" tags for everyone. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)