Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marlia555786/Archive

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.

See recreation of Mai Tran and Zoya Tsopei, previously draft:Zoya Tsopei SANTADICAE🎅  18:39, 11 February 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

 * Already blocked and tagged, closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
There are two new accounts which are both SPAs promoting Zoya Tsopei and Mai Tran once again. Also both of the new accounts use broken English in the edit summaries  so are clearly the same person as each other. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:24, 12 March 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

 * ...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Technical evidence:
 * Also found and ✅:
 * I was not able to use technical evidence or data to compare these socks to the master. The master is and there are no CU logs that I can reference. However, see below...
 * Behavioral evidence:
 * After looking through the contributions and deleted contributions for each sock, as well as the master, I can say with confidence that these accounts are very likely associated with the master. All of them appear on the same deleted drafts and articles involving Zoya Tsopei and Mai Tran, and their edit summary and word use are nearly identical. I'm comfortable with tagging each user in this report as being a sock puppet of, and will do so, as well as close this report.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not able to use technical evidence or data to compare these socks to the master. The master is and there are no CU logs that I can reference. However, see below...
 * Behavioral evidence:
 * After looking through the contributions and deleted contributions for each sock, as well as the master, I can say with confidence that these accounts are very likely associated with the master. All of them appear on the same deleted drafts and articles involving Zoya Tsopei and Mai Tran, and their edit summary and word use are nearly identical. I'm comfortable with tagging each user in this report as being a sock puppet of, and will do so, as well as close this report.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * After looking through the contributions and deleted contributions for each sock, as well as the master, I can say with confidence that these accounts are very likely associated with the master. All of them appear on the same deleted drafts and articles involving Zoya Tsopei and Mai Tran, and their edit summary and word use are nearly identical. I'm comfortable with tagging each user in this report as being a sock puppet of, and will do so, as well as close this report.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
According to evidence provided here, this is a CU-confirmed sock. Since the master has been blocked indefinitely, please consider blocking Legaltimes for block evasion. The behaviour also supports this as they are solely editing to promote Zoya Tsopei once again so would probably be a WP:DUCK regardless of the CU evidence. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:37, 15 December 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

 * -, and there's some other (possibly stale) unblocked accounts such as . Please, do a sleeper check. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything other than Legaltimes is, all I can say is  Salvio 21:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * - please, block Legaltimes as suspected to Marlia555786. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * per above, I don't believe there's anything further to do here. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Relatively new user that has taken an interest to the article and AfD, just like the recently blocked sockpuppet. See these diffs for similar behaviour:.

The behaviour isn't quite smoking-gun enough for me to block on sight; that's why I've asked for checkuser involvement, and for others familiar with the case to see if the patterns of editing are there (or if I just got a false positive).

Yes, I did see apparent similarities with ; I'm not sure if that's also a related account or just the name that Marlia used as the starting point to generate this new user name. —C.Fred (talk) 04:37, 20 December 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

 * is ✅ to ; I will block and tag. I don't see any other accounts; is in the same country, but looks different in other respects - probably unrelated.   Girth Summit  (blether)  12:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Edits so far are generally benign, although there are MOS violations for overlinking. However, there are pronounced overlaps in areas of interest and editing style. Compare this edit by a confirmed sock and this edit by Bilionera786. Evidence of sockpuppetry is not so overwhelming that I'm comfortable blocking on sight without CU assistance, but I feel it's strong enough that asking for CU is justified. —C.Fred (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * Marking as : requested in original post. &mdash; Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull; contribs) 14:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ to .  Salvio 10:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * - please indef Bilionera786 as a confirmed sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * With the CU confirmation, I have now blocked the user. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, closing. Spicy (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * mobile edit and mobile web edit tags
 * username is similar to previous sock Tichkun786
 * this edit is suspicious
 * likely UPE, has created multiple articles on non-notable subjects &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 19:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice this before, but they state they had a previous account on their user page and forgot the password. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 19:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

As a Commons CU who's been following these users, certain behavour and notes that might be helpful:
 * Aforementioned name similarity to known sock ;
 * Not all socks use the "/text" edit summary (see, for example,, , , and );


 * Creates and edits Jannat Mirza--subsequently edited by Tichkun786 and Bilionera786;
 * Creates and edits Alishbah Anjum--subsequently edited by Tichkun786 and Bilionera786;
 * Creates and edits Zulqarnain Sikandar--subsequently edited by Bilionera786:
 * Creates and edits Rabeeca Khan--subsequently edited by Bilionera786:


 * (All are non-notable social media personalities, like other focuses: Mai Tran, Zoya Tsopei, etc.)

I consider it possible that these are meatpuppets rather than a single individual--both, of course, being abuse of multiple accounts. As per Ingenuity above and the nature of the edits, this is likely ad agency spam (perhaps tellingly, for example, 's first Commons upload was a logo for a digital marketing company.) As context that might be helpful: social media platforms often use existence of WMF articles as a measure for determining whether a social media account is sufficiently notable to receive a verified/trusted/official/etc flag. Ad agencies are thus paid to create articles both for that intrinsic promotion and to bolster a case for a verified badge. (Wikidata is terrible about patrolling and enforcing notability and is riddled with entries on entirety unimportant persons--on Commons we see dozens of the related images every day; en.wiki is generally better about enforcing WP:N, so this circumstance may or may not be generally known here.) Эlcobbola  talk 16:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Edits Masters (TV series), as does Bilionera786
 * Tichku is serendipitously aware of two highly active Commons users (Achim55 and Tuvalkin)--with whom that account has never interacted here or there--and to them bemoans their Commons block here . This is a common red flag indicating multiple accounts (see two most recent JRM2018 sections, for example)--and is especially so in aggregate with this edit.
 * In addition to the above, note also this may relate to NasirRanjhyWala. Please see my CU wiki notes.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like Tichku was looked into earlier in December (Sockpuppet investigations/Marlia555786/Archive) and not identified as a sockpuppet, even with CU checks. They have had some problems in their early Wikipedia career as an editor (which I have brought up on their talk page) but I think there needs to be some confirmation that they are a sockpuppet beyond suspicion. Right now they are complaining about their block on the Commons (with, for some reason, a loss of talk page access) and rejecting that they have any other accounts. I know that all editors, whether they are sockpuppets or not, state this as a fact. But in case there was a wrong identification on the Commons, I'd hate for that error to spill over to the English Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "I think there needs to be some confirmation that they are a sockpuppet beyond suspicion" - Checkusers, which include myself, are in fact familiar with evidence requirements, data assessment, and application of discretion. One wonders how this was expected to be helpful.  You appear unaware that: a) Tichku has made hundreds of edits since 20 December, and thus there is an entirely new pool of data available and indeed a new likely finding below based thereon and b) socking is unambiguously confirmed on the Commons (I have, in fact, been a CU for as long as Liz has even been an account and, if I'm mistaken, it would a first; as I don't do appeals to authority, I have made thorough documentation).  Tichku is NasirRanjhyWala.  Full stop.  The question is whether the Marlia555786 group should be merged.  Pinging  and, the two most recent CUs on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NasirRanjhyWala so this can get some attention from those able to offer informed opinions. It is unfortunate that Liz, an admin, offers this credulity instead of blocking.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that an admin or editor needed to be active for a certain number of years to offer an opinion on an SPI case. I'm sorry elcobbola, that you took my comment raising a question about a block and removal of talk page access so poorly and lashed out in such a hostile manner. This kind of oversensitive reaction to an editor offering a different opinion has never been my experience before in an En-Wiki SPI case but I guess there is a different culture on the Commons and admins are not used to being questioned. That's an unfortunate situation for the editors who work there. I've only had positive experiences with checkusers on this project who have been willing to offer explanations if there are questions about a block or identification of a sockpuppet. I'm grateful for all of the work that they do here and their willingness to have a discussion about cases while, of course, upholding all of the necessary privacy concerns. They do a great job which is why I felt it was okay to bring my question here. Turns out, that this was a good block. As an admin here though, I would wait for CU confirmation before blocking an editor as a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I'd asserted one needed to be active for a certain number of years to offer an opinion on an SPI case. I do recall asserting one should offer an informed opinion, rather than condescending credulity.  I'm sorry, Liz, that you took my comment questioning your unhelpful, unsubstantive, and clueless comment as hostile.  Perhaps this kind of oversensitive reaction to an editor offering a different opinion is a different culture here; it's an unfortunate situation that en.wiki admins content themselves with table pounding.  Turns out, I know what I'm talking about.  Consider also reviewing how SUL accounts work when assessing assertions of xwiki functionaries in the future.  Эlcobbola  talk 01:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - given the user name, timing of sign up, editing habits, etc. MarioGom (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say
 * is a match to
 * as it could possibly just be a coincidence - edit summaries doesn't match up as a whole. Doesn't look like a forgotten password case though. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * as it could possibly just be a coincidence - edit summaries doesn't match up as a whole. Doesn't look like a forgotten password case though. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed 's CU wiki evidence and run my own check and I am confident that is a sock of NasirRanjhyWala's. As such, I have CU-blocked the account and a newly created sleeper, . I don't know if this the same sock farm as Marlia555786, so I'm not tagging anyone, for the moment.  Salvio 17:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing further to do here, closing. The SandDoctor  Talk 22:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)