Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Milktaco/Archive

28 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This user recently admitted to using these accounts as socks. I found significant overlap, when I looked through the different contributions.

Rajmaan 23:34, 14 November 2012 (diff KeepitImpartial (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Keepitimpartial violated rules 2 and 3 while filing this case. The yellow box at the top of the page that appears while filing sockpuppet reports says "If you have requested that a CheckUser supply information to this investigation, you must always explain:"


 * i) how the accounts belong to one person
 * ii) how they are being abused
 * iii) why CheckUser is necessary (in most cases it isn't)

Also the yellow box at the top of the page that appears while filing sockpuppet reports says "Clerks and CheckUsers cannot be expected to establish your argument for you. You must therefore supply diffs to support it. If you do not do so, your investigation may be summarily closed (and the request for CheckUser will certainly be declined). "

Rajmaan (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The only reason keepitinpartial knows about these socks is because I listed them on my user page before he filed this report and i made it clear that they were my socks. He has failed to provide evidence of abuse of sockpuppets, which is against policy. Merely keeping socks without abusing them does not violate policy. And i fail to see the "significant overlap".

By the way GraemeLeggett is not my sock account.

Its clear that he is grinding an axe over the sockpuppet report on him which i filed, in which he abused a sockpuppet account to make it appear as though two people disputed the neutrality of the same article

Sockpuppet investigations/TruthorDuty/Archive

In keepitimpartial's case, he violated the rule of "Creating an illusion of support" Sock_puppetry.

i never tried to push an agenda with my socks on the same article, pretending that i was two different people. See Sock_puppetry.

Most of my edits are adding sources to talk pages, not engaging in disputes with other users. When i edited the same article with different accounts, i was not circumventing an existing ban or trying to revert or engage in disputes with other users, and if i had previously used an account to edit that article, i abandoned usage of that account, and was not involved in an edit war. My usage of socks complies with legitimate uses, only if i had been using my socks to engage in a dispute with other users and pretend i was different people, or to try to circumvent a ban, would i be in violation of policy.Rajmaan (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify what i said, if i had edited the same articles with different accounts, the old account was abandoned and not used again, and i did not engage in disputes and pretend to be different people. With other accounts that i actively use at the same time and do not abandon, all of the edits are to different article talk pages, listing sources. I have not engaged in any edit warring, disputes or block evasion with multiple accounts.Rajmaan (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to permanently abandon the sock accounts and only edit with User:Rajmaan account, but i would like it to be pointed out in their block logs that they were abandoned, since there was no abuse of multiple accounts going on like block evasion or edit warring with multiple accounts.Rajmaan (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Count me as surprised as being named as a sockpuppet of a user whose contributionhistory has minimal overlap. I would have thought that had the complainant compared my editing with any of the other accounts, they would not have found much in common stylistically or thematically. (I felt I ought to say something regarding the accusation). GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, as my account has several more years editing - in the guise of a Englishman editing chiefly on aviation, the military and technical matters - than the others, perhaps I can claim some sort of award for most successful sleeper sockpuppet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Rajmaan seems to have violated the following policies: Rajmaan recently disclosed multiple socks. This was done only after a long history of using these socks to violate the following policies.

Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited).

Policy shortcut: WP:SCRUTINY Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

He appears to have contributed to The Dungan Revolt with no less than 5 accounts. A bit of digging will reveal more overlaps on other pages. If asked, I will gladly provide this information.

The Dungan Revolt Contributions in question: Rajmaan 23:34, 14 November 2012 (diff | hist). . (+389)‎ . . Talk:Dungan revolt (1862–1877) ‎ (→‎Case study of the revolt)

Casseruler 04:06, 13 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+104)‎ . . Dungan revolt (1895–1896) ‎ (→‎Revolt) (top)

Shining_Stark 19:45, 4 November 2012 (diff | hist). . (+198)‎ . . Dungan revolt (1862–1877) ‎ (→‎Russian and British relations with Yaqub Beg)

Seyeednu 23:44, 11 November 2012 (diff | hist). . (+205)‎ . . Talk:Dungan revolt (1895–1896) ‎ (→‎Contenporary Account of the rebellion: new section) (top)

Fishmongrel 06:05, 12 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+211)‎ . . Dungan revolt (1895–1896)

KeepitImpartial (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC) ‎

wrong. I voluntarily disclosed my socks with no pressure put on me to do so, nor with anyone disputing the edits i made to dungan revolt or other articles that i edited dwith the same account. If someone had disputed my edits at the dungan revolt article and i used multiple accounts at the same time in order to edit war, that would be abuse. But that never happened. A bit of digging reveals that absolutely no other user keeps a consistent watch on the Dungan revolt, unlike Boxer Rebellion where User:CWH keeps a constant watch and removes and controversial material, and if you look at the talk page, no disputes about the content have been made. I had absolutely no motivation to pretend to be another person in order to fool people, because no one was hounding me over my edits. The reason my edits overlap is obvious.

At Dungan revolt (1862–1877)-

I use my rajmaan account mainly to edit article related to muslims in china. This is why i added sources to the dungan revolt talk page which overlapped with my interest area, since muslims fought in the revolt.

Shining stark account was for editing articles on turkish china relations. This overlapped with the dungan revolt due to ottoman turkeys involvement.

Bimbee account reverted months old vandalism by ip addresses and resummarized information present in the article dungan revolt, which i had noticed was different from several months before.

Fishmongrel resummarized information on the Dungan revolt (1895–1896), a separate article from the first dungan revolt, this accounts area of interest were related to generals who fought in both the boxer rebellion and dungan revolt.

Casseruler edited that article with information pertaining to the first sino japanese war, which happaened at the same time as that revolt. Casseruler's interest area was the sino japanese war

Seyeednu added a source to the talk page of that article, i used that account because i found that source while looking up sources for nie shicheng and his tenacious army at the battle of tientsin, which was this account's area of interest. I didn't want to log into account for the sake of dumping one source onto a talkpage.

Its noticible that you do not show the links to the edits i made in the articles, since all of the edits i made were either reverting vandalism, listing sources on the talk page or resummarizing non controversial information already present in the article!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dungan_revolt_(1862–1877)&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dungan_revolt_(1895–1896)&diff=511968241&oldid=509841513

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dungan_revolt_(1895–1896)&diff=next&oldid=511968241

Talk:Dungan_revolt_(1862–1877)

Talk:Dungan_revolt_(1862–1877)

Did anyone challenge my edits? Why would i be motivated to deliberately try to confuse people? The reason why my edits overlapped on some articles was because the topic area in which the accounts edited overlapped sometimes. There was no block evasion or trying to avoid other user's scrutiny, since there were no other users monitoring that article or challenging my edits as controversial.

Most of my talk page edits were dumping sources relating to that article into a list, and very little words.

Rajmaan (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited).

Policy shortcut: WP:SCRUTINY Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

None of my accounts were under surveillance for controversial edits. Most of my socks were abandoned after being used to dump a list of sources on the talk pages of article about a certain topic area. After i was done listing sources, or fixing vandalism/resummarizing information already in the article, i left the account alone and did not use them at the same time. Therefore there was no avoiding scrutiny when nobody put scrutiny on my edits. Rajmaan (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

CHECKUSER:

Since I initiated this investigation, Rajmaan has revealed two previously undisclosed socks on his user page. I seems logical to assume, that there are undoubtedly more.

The two new socks are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mr_reems_45kg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bimbee

KeepitImpartial (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As Fishmongrel, Rajmaan added the following information to the article for The Boxer Rebellion. He later reverted my removal of this information as Rajmaan, without disclosing that he had authored the passage. He also presented himself as a neutral party on the associated talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=511966020&oldid=511957299

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=524668658&oldid=524634415

KeepitImpartial (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * keepitimpartial fails to disclose the fact that i was the one who disclosed fishmongrel as my own sockpuppet right on my userpage, explicitly stating "This is my master account. I keep sock accounts for editing in different topic areas, as originally planned, but if they conincide i will discontinue the use of one account"


 * I did not claim to be a different person than fishmongrel. After reverting keepitimpartial's edits, I disclosed my own sock in order not to appear as a neutral party. Since i logged out of fishmongrel a few months ago, i did not ever use it again, and i outed it as my sock on my own userpage in order to disclose all potential conflicts of interests when i decided to use my Rajmaan account to edit the same article.Rajmaan (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I added the information because it was removed last year by an anonymous ip. When i checked the article and it was different from what i read a year ago, i only undied what i assumed to be vandalism from an anonymous ip, since the information was found in the source. It was uncontroversial.

However, when keepitimpartial suddenly showed up, tagging cited information as uncited along with genuinely uncited information, and deleting other cited information which appeared to show a partisan agenda, i immediately undid his edits In one reversion, because he made all his changes in one edit.

I had also been alarmed by an ip address making major unsourced pov vandalism

the reason i remembered bimbee and mr reems 45 kg is because i bothered to look back at the dungan revolt's edit history and the tang dynasty article, to which i just added a source on the talk page.i also just remembered mr reems 45 kg also posted on the talk page of another user asking for translation, whom i consulted for a separate matter.

Rajmaan (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

message to checkuser
'''CHECKUSER: i am currently using an open proxy because my work ip address is blocked from wikipedia due to vandalism from co workers. I will use my own ip address at home. i apologize if it seems a a deliberate attempt to confuse.''' You may scan both ip addresses. I did not use open proxies before but was forced to in order to respond to these accusations from work. This is the first time i used one. I would actually like a checkuser to see if you find any old forgotten accounts where i dumped a source on a talk page, so i can retrieve them. I am confident you will not find block evasion or pretending to be different people in an edit dispute. I am not currently running two accounts at the same time. All of my old accounts are abandoned and may be blocked.Rajmaan (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm back to my normal ip address nowRajmaan (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot remember or find any more socks. Its up to the checkuser now, but i can promise that you will not find sock abuse like block evasion or edit warring while pretending to be two people. When i edited the boxer rebellion with rajmaan and got into a dispute, with keepitimpartial, i disclosed my connection to fishmongrel on my userpage to make in public that we were one person, so that i would not be committing abuse of multiple accounts.Rajmaan (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

list of my socks
this is the list of all of my socks that I remember, for the checkuser to check against the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Guderyean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kuoofra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Seyeednu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ghressho

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Krumphila

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fishmongrel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Purblio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Needs_dinero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mendsetting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jerezembel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yereebel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shining_stark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Casseruler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mr_reems_45kg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bimbee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jaabaat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zed_browner

Rajmaan (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I just logged back on, to find that he has added two more socks. One of these initiated a SPI, in which he stated the following:

"he also isn't just doing disruptive editing, he is flagrantly violating the sockpuppet policy by using them to restore edits from his other accounts which were reverted by other users. It isn't a case where he is innocently operating different accounts without abusing them."Jaabaat (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Profwujiang/Archive

By this logic, Rajmaan would consider his own behavior abuse, and this proves that he was fully aware, that he was engaging in such, when he reverted my edits of material from one of his socks, with another. He did not disclose this as a sock until later, when he felt he had to. This reeks of hypocrisy.

KeepitImpartial (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Rajmaan, acting as Jaabaat, also has a history of what seems to be improper canvassing to gain help in editing disputes.

§ 03:07, 26 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+1,640)‎ . . User talk:TheLeopard ‎ (→‎Help reverting sockpuppet: new section)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheLeopard#Help_reverting_sockpuppet

03:02, 26 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+261)‎ . . User talk:Lathdrinor ‎ (→‎Sockpuppet you encountered before: new section) (top)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lathdrinor

06:35, 25 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+326)‎ . . User talk:Benlisquare ‎ (→‎Please report this sockpuppet: new section)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benlisquare

05:50, 25 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+678)‎ . . User talk:Shrigley ‎ (→‎Anti china editor freely editing with sockpuppets, adding unsourced statements and original research)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shrigley#Anti_china_editor_freely_editing_with_sockpuppets.2C_adding_unsourced_statements_and_original_research

KeepitImpartial (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * keepitimpartial claims "He did not disclose this as a sock until later, when he felt he had to.". Wrong. I was under no pressure to reveal any socks because no one suspected me of socking.I disclosed the socks of my own volition, and thats the only reason keepitimpartial even knew i had socks


 * ialso abandoned the fishmongrel account months ago, and did not use two accounts concurrently to edit war.


 * keepitimpartial is misleadingly labeling asking for help filing a sockpuppet report Sockpuppet investigations/Profwujiang as being " improper canvassing to gain help in editing disputes." when the sockpuppet in question was adding not only pov pushing information, but his information was unsourced as well. look at profwujiang's edit hstiory and anyone can spot his edits were vandalism. user:LLtimes personally reverted him several times and knew that he was operating sockpuppets already, warning profwujiang/william plant to knock off with his vandalism and sockpuppetry


 * the sockpuppet i was complaining about in what keepitimpartial claimed was an "edit war", User:profwujiang and william plant were adding plain pov pushing vandalism, and was warned about using socks at the same time to back each other up by LLtimes, and they continued to sock after that which was why his socks were blocked indefinetly and profwujiang was given a punitive block.


 * keepitimpartial is also misleadingly labeling my reversion of his edits as merely readding material by my other sock account when he was actually tagging cited information as uncited along with genuinely uncited information, and deleting other cited information for no apparent reason other than the fact that he didn't like it, i immediately undid his edits In one reversion, because he made all his changes in one edit.


 * fishmongrel was created for editing on the boxer rebellion article, and rajmaan on topics relating to muslims in republican era and world war 2 history in china. One of those muslim generals happened to fight in the boxer rebellion and world war 2, is why i used rajmaan to start editing boxer rebellion. I then noticed keepitimpartial's major changes to the article which i mentioned above and reverted them- most of his changes did not relate to the content fishmongrel readded see explanation in above paragraphs.Rajmaan (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was also not the person who originally put the material keepitimpartial is talking about into the article. The first time the material was in, it was aritten in an inflammatory manner and i actually toned it down. I readded the information because it was removed last year by an anonymous ip. When i checked the article and it was different from what i read a year ago, i only undied what i assumed to be vandalism from an anonymous ip, since the information was found in the source. It was uncontroversial.Rajmaan (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * keepitimpartial is also reeking of hypocrisy since he used two sock accounts on the same day  within less than 20 minutes of each other.


 * after i noted that he was using a sockpuppet on the talk page, he did not disclose his sleeper sock, verityfortunas or admit he was using socks at all, ignoring the issue. It was only when the investigation was done -Sockpuppet investigations/TruthorDuty/Archive that his extra sock was uncovered and it was only after he was blocked he addressed the issue at all, claiming he lost the password to verityfortunas and truthorduty. That still doesn't explain why he created truthorduty less than twenty minutes after last editing with verityfortunas.Rajmaan (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * i disclosed my own socks voluntarily on my userpage with no outside pressure, with no one suspecting me of abuse, after it became apparent to me that my edits overlapped with my previous account. Otherwise i abandoned the old accounts and did not edit war concurrently. The edit i reverted contained numerous major changes which resembled vandalism, such as removing cited information and tagged some cited information as uncited, along with tagging genuinely uncited information. Keepitimpartial is misleadingly claiming that it was about the one sentence that fishmongrel added.Rajmaan (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - He identifies the socks on his userpage. No checkuser is necessary. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While I can't see any particular abuse of multiple accounts (they aren't exactly trying to hide), I must ask if it is really necessary to use that many accounts? As an aside, GraemeLeggett is clearly unrelated. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the sheer number of socks and the fact that he is constantly adding new socks to his userpage (most of which have made edits long before he disclosed them as alternate accounts), I think it may be necessary to check if he has disclosed the full range of his accounts. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * - I think KoH has a very good point, and a CU sweep is a good idea here. T. Canens (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are a ✅ match:
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on his agreement on my talk page to have the alternate accounts blocked, I have blocked them and left User:Rajmaan, the master, alone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the best possible solution since abuse wasn't the primary concern. Closing as it looks like we are done here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on his agreement on my talk page to have the alternate accounts blocked, I have blocked them and left User:Rajmaan, the master, alone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the best possible solution since abuse wasn't the primary concern. Closing as it looks like we are done here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on his agreement on my talk page to have the alternate accounts blocked, I have blocked them and left User:Rajmaan, the master, alone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the best possible solution since abuse wasn't the primary concern. Closing as it looks like we are done here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on his agreement on my talk page to have the alternate accounts blocked, I have blocked them and left User:Rajmaan, the master, alone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the best possible solution since abuse wasn't the primary concern. Closing as it looks like we are done here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on his agreement on my talk page to have the alternate accounts blocked, I have blocked them and left User:Rajmaan, the master, alone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the best possible solution since abuse wasn't the primary concern. Closing as it looks like we are done here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on his agreement on my talk page to have the alternate accounts blocked, I have blocked them and left User:Rajmaan, the master, alone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the best possible solution since abuse wasn't the primary concern. Closing as it looks like we are done here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on his agreement on my talk page to have the alternate accounts blocked, I have blocked them and left User:Rajmaan, the master, alone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the best possible solution since abuse wasn't the primary concern. Closing as it looks like we are done here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on his agreement on my talk page to have the alternate accounts blocked, I have blocked them and left User:Rajmaan, the master, alone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the best possible solution since abuse wasn't the primary concern. Closing as it looks like we are done here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like the best possible solution since abuse wasn't the primary concern. Closing as it looks like we are done here. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Article overlap across ten Wikipedia pages in the last day as shown here
 * All editors are pushing a specific emphasis on Japanese war crimes.
 * Each editor creates an account, edits furiously for a couple of hours, then appears to abandon the account.
 * Each editor starts with an edit to one article, then pushes the same data across multiple articles, for example:
 * Xenqi: 1, 2, 3, 4
 * Uavanaz: 1, 2, 3, 4
 * Epreshte: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 * Writing style and citations are nearly identical, and citations are full and correct. This is not a new editor, so this might not be the ultimate master.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Can we discuss this in private please? I am the same person but I am not avoiding a block or violating policy. I don't contest reverts to my edits. I am avoiding dox, I was told by an admin to abandon my original account.Epreshte (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I send you an email giving you the name of the master account before the harassment and dox. I was told to make a new account. I hoped to keep them on separate topics, Uavanaz edits on Tungusic topics and Ephreshte and Xenqi on others but they overlapped on this. If I was trying to hide, i would not edit the same article on war crimes or use the same citation style.Epreshte (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Even if you were told to create a new account, I am certain that he did not suggest that you create more than one, or to evade scrutiny of your edits by segregating them by account name. Do you have any input to offer in this matter?  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If I do not segregate edits by topic, then my account would easily be found all over again. Tell Oshwah my original account name in private.Epreshte (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is well beyond my pay grade, and I do not make any decisions around here. I will leave it to the administrators to explain policy, and to take whatever action may be required.  I am sensitive to your need for privacy, and I am sorry that you have been harassed and doxxed in a previous incarnation. Even with the three accounts, it was not difficult to see that these accounts were all connected to the same editor.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I had this in mind when I created these accounts. wikipedia policy allows for multiple accounts for privacy reasons, as long as they aren't abused (voting multiple times, used for edit warring, etc.) Sock_puppetry ***Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. Although a privacy-based alternative account is not publicly connected to your main account, it should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page, and if it is, the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions. If you are considering using an alternative account under this provision, please read the notification section below.***Epreshte (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * you or someone else can supervise my accounts (someone who knows the names of my different accounts in private) and make sure I don't violate policy. Can you close the case and respond to my email so I will give you the name of some of the other accounts via email (that I used to edit on other topics) in private? Respond to my email so we can communicate. I'd rather not a stalker find out anything more. I will cease editing from all accounts right now and proceed only if given permission. If my editing is restricted to only one account after this I will comply. I already told you the master account.Epreshte (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Epreshte - I got your message. Did you disclose your accounts to the Arbitration Committee? If not, then you should do this. Having multiple accounts is fine as said at this section of the sock puppetry policy - so long as you're not using the accounts (like you said) against policy then yes, that's okay. I would highly recommend that you contact the Arbitration Committee to disclose them.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting. I didn't know where to disclose it but I will take your advice into consideration if I continue editing. I may reconsider continuing editing at all if a stalker can find me this easily but now at least I know how to avoid this situation at SPI. I will be going somewhere and am taking a hiatus from editing (under all accounts) for several weeks and rethink if I should choose to continue editing and make a decision. My master email is open for occasional communication as I do not want to discuss it further in public. I request that Xenqi, Uavanaz and this account Epreshte not be blocked even if I no longer use them for editing because a block showing in the user contributions would be a big red flag to a stalker. They have not been used for policy violating activities like edit warring like 3RR or vote stacking. They are already marked in this investigation for future reference so a block would not be necessary.Epreshte (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have sent a list of my sockpuppets yesterday to an arbitrator with an explanation and I sent him updated lists following the initial email. You can contact him. He will checkuser my accounts. Check your email. He is taking care of the case and you can email said arbitrator. Other checkusers and clerks can email me to ask for the arbitrator's username which I will tell so they can confirm with him by email that I disclosed the accounts.Epreshte (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Given Eprsehte's openness in this case, a check is not necessary. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅
 * . The account Rajmaan edited in 2012 but, at the same time, wasn't created until 2017. My assumption is that this oddity was achieved by a rename and then a usurpation. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Frowardem is the oldest account, created in 2012. Sro23 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I thought my comments implied, I want to keep this case with Rajmaan as the master. Although I haven't found the original creation date of the Rajmaan account, I know he was editing in 2012 and am fairly certain his creation date precedes Frowardem's.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Special:Log/Rajmaan, the account was created in October of 2017. Sro23 (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, . Like Bbb23 said, the account was renamed and usurped. Please take a look at the original SPI. I will try to find out the details now. Alex Shih (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Really sorry about that. Sro23 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's okay, this was extremely confusing and I had to contact Bbb23 out of frustration; I should apologise to also for this mess. Pinging  for more information. What happened here was:  was renamed to  , and then  was renamed to  . After each rename, the user created a new account at the original account name to cover the trails. There appears to be more background involved, but this kind of disruptive editing behaviour should never be allowed. Alex Shih (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * . The account Rajmaan edited in 2012 but, at the same time, wasn't created until 2017. My assumption is that this oddity was achieved by a rename and then a usurpation. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Frowardem is the oldest account, created in 2012. Sro23 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I thought my comments implied, I want to keep this case with Rajmaan as the master. Although I haven't found the original creation date of the Rajmaan account, I know he was editing in 2012 and am fairly certain his creation date precedes Frowardem's.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Special:Log/Rajmaan, the account was created in October of 2017. Sro23 (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, . Like Bbb23 said, the account was renamed and usurped. Please take a look at the original SPI. I will try to find out the details now. Alex Shih (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Really sorry about that. Sro23 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's okay, this was extremely confusing and I had to contact Bbb23 out of frustration; I should apologise to also for this mess. Pinging  for more information. What happened here was:  was renamed to  , and then  was renamed to  . After each rename, the user created a new account at the original account name to cover the trails. There appears to be more background involved, but this kind of disruptive editing behaviour should never be allowed. Alex Shih (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * . The account Rajmaan edited in 2012 but, at the same time, wasn't created until 2017. My assumption is that this oddity was achieved by a rename and then a usurpation. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Frowardem is the oldest account, created in 2012. Sro23 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I thought my comments implied, I want to keep this case with Rajmaan as the master. Although I haven't found the original creation date of the Rajmaan account, I know he was editing in 2012 and am fairly certain his creation date precedes Frowardem's.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Special:Log/Rajmaan, the account was created in October of 2017. Sro23 (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, . Like Bbb23 said, the account was renamed and usurped. Please take a look at the original SPI. I will try to find out the details now. Alex Shih (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Really sorry about that. Sro23 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's okay, this was extremely confusing and I had to contact Bbb23 out of frustration; I should apologise to also for this mess. Pinging  for more information. What happened here was:  was renamed to  , and then  was renamed to  . After each rename, the user created a new account at the original account name to cover the trails. There appears to be more background involved, but this kind of disruptive editing behaviour should never be allowed. Alex Shih (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * . The account Rajmaan edited in 2012 but, at the same time, wasn't created until 2017. My assumption is that this oddity was achieved by a rename and then a usurpation. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Frowardem is the oldest account, created in 2012. Sro23 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I thought my comments implied, I want to keep this case with Rajmaan as the master. Although I haven't found the original creation date of the Rajmaan account, I know he was editing in 2012 and am fairly certain his creation date precedes Frowardem's.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Special:Log/Rajmaan, the account was created in October of 2017. Sro23 (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, . Like Bbb23 said, the account was renamed and usurped. Please take a look at the original SPI. I will try to find out the details now. Alex Shih (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Really sorry about that. Sro23 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's okay, this was extremely confusing and I had to contact Bbb23 out of frustration; I should apologise to also for this mess. Pinging  for more information. What happened here was:  was renamed to  , and then  was renamed to  . After each rename, the user created a new account at the original account name to cover the trails. There appears to be more background involved, but this kind of disruptive editing behaviour should never be allowed. Alex Shih (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * . The account Rajmaan edited in 2012 but, at the same time, wasn't created until 2017. My assumption is that this oddity was achieved by a rename and then a usurpation. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Frowardem is the oldest account, created in 2012. Sro23 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I thought my comments implied, I want to keep this case with Rajmaan as the master. Although I haven't found the original creation date of the Rajmaan account, I know he was editing in 2012 and am fairly certain his creation date precedes Frowardem's.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Special:Log/Rajmaan, the account was created in October of 2017. Sro23 (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, . Like Bbb23 said, the account was renamed and usurped. Please take a look at the original SPI. I will try to find out the details now. Alex Shih (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Really sorry about that. Sro23 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's okay, this was extremely confusing and I had to contact Bbb23 out of frustration; I should apologise to also for this mess. Pinging  for more information. What happened here was:  was renamed to  , and then  was renamed to  . After each rename, the user created a new account at the original account name to cover the trails. There appears to be more background involved, but this kind of disruptive editing behaviour should never be allowed. Alex Shih (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I thought my comments implied, I want to keep this case with Rajmaan as the master. Although I haven't found the original creation date of the Rajmaan account, I know he was editing in 2012 and am fairly certain his creation date precedes Frowardem's.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Special:Log/Rajmaan, the account was created in October of 2017. Sro23 (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, . Like Bbb23 said, the account was renamed and usurped. Please take a look at the original SPI. I will try to find out the details now. Alex Shih (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Really sorry about that. Sro23 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's okay, this was extremely confusing and I had to contact Bbb23 out of frustration; I should apologise to also for this mess. Pinging  for more information. What happened here was:  was renamed to  , and then  was renamed to  . After each rename, the user created a new account at the original account name to cover the trails. There appears to be more background involved, but this kind of disruptive editing behaviour should never be allowed. Alex Shih (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This newly created account massive edits on China's related articles looks suspicious. Based on the case several years before, there is sock master involving a user named Rajmaan possibly from the Philippines (see here) and stays in Singapore (according to IP detection) with interest to spend much of his time in China Muslims and dynasties topics that resulted the need of major cleaning to undo his edits. See this similar patterns from one of his previous account with obsession on China Muslims and compared with the recent addition under the latest account. See also the similarity on sexual crimes related articles between the previous account and latest one. Could they actually the same person? Too much behaviour that are seen very close between each of the accounts. Leonel Johnson (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are still active, remember your comment on this suspicious user attitude of renaming account to cover his trails? Maybe you can help me explained more details about this user here if you could sense similar edit patterns between this newly created account and the previous blocked accounts. Thank you. Leonel Johnson (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * also pinging @, @ and @. Leonel Johnson (talk) 07:02, 3 June 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
✅ + . . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Ping User:JimRenge for further input. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Rajmaan, c.q. User:Milktaco, c.q. User:Dividing, has edited History of Xinjiang before.
 * Alexkyoung claims to have written the info diff at Uyghur women under Qing rule, yet that info was already at History of Xinjiang before Alexkyoung created his account; it was probably added by Milktaco (soory, ramselerhof.de seems to be unaccessible).
 * General Lincoln pops in at Talk:History of Xinjiang out of nowhere, in defense of Alexkyoung
 * General Lincoln thinks I'm an administrator diff, just like Alexkyoung diff.
 * General Lincoln has the same odd ideas diff about Indo-Europeans as Alexkyoung diff

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I am busy in RL now but I will present additional evidence in the evening. There is also an ongoing discussion at ANI .JimRenge (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said on the other SPI page, despite being created a few weeks ago, and having made very few edits, it is clear that General Lincoln is not a new editor. The timing, subject and POV of General Lincoln's edits (in relation to Alexkyoung) is also highly suspicious. Jayjg (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkyoung. ST47 (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Alexkyoung and General Lincon are ❌ to Rajmaan (since renamed to and very  to each other. I have deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkyoung.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my finding with respect to the relationship between Alexkyoung and General Lincoln. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkyoung where I explain. This case, though, can remain closed as the two accounts are being dealt with at the other SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Close per the above. The SandDoctor  Talk 03:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage#There_are_many_misinterpreting_the_source_about_Chinese_intermarrige. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage/Archive_2#There_are_many_misinterpreting_the_source_about_Chinese_intermarrige.

A)He claims to be a user of each other.''Right now 2 editors here (Watersinfalls including me) are confused if ...' B)This talk is about the Chinese international marriage in Latin America and China. However,41.34.93.140/102.44.199.16 suddenly began to comment on Korea, which expressed nationalist feelings and was not related to this talk. C) I invited him to get the UserID. D) 'Watersinfalls' appeared, and suddenly He mentioned a Korean who had nothing to do with talk. The editing method is the same as the IP address. E) 'Sogdian' 'Korea' : These two keywords are not the focus of this talk. It's a crazy word, regardless of the talk. F) However, 'Watersinfalls' and IP  are equally referring to the keyword. G) It is unlikely that these two dolls are different characters. H) Also, the two IP and 'Watersinfalls' participate only in this talk, with no other contributions. Bablos939 (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

'Watersinfalls' consistently gave irrelevant answers to the questions.The debate has nothing to do with Korea, but it has been repeating itself.Bablos939 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miscegenation#Modified_proposal:_split_and_merge_out_Section_4 Strong evidence continues to be found. He ('Watersinfalls'/41.34.93.140) continues to appear at the same time in irrelevant discussions and talk about things that are irrelevant to the point. Even a different IP address(41.232.35.139) appears and is cheating the same way. single-purpose account : Watersinfalls, 41.34.93.140 ,102.44.199.16, Maomao123. 41.232.35.139  He's disrupting Wikipedia all over.!! Bablos939 (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interracial_marriage&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage#There_are_many_misinterpreting_the_source_about_Chinese_intermarrige. 'Bamnamu' It is the most suspicious user. A) He first urged a talk . But it was 'Watersinfalls' and IP who showed up. B) The content of the talk is an international marriage in China, but suddenly he kept talking about Korea. For your information, he is Korean. C) 'Watersinfalls' and IP continued to talk about Goryeo and Mongolia and Korea!!! It is consistent with ''Bamnamu' contribution. D) He sued me for not even taking part in the talk.!!! E) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bamnamu He is controversial for his racist remarks. It's the same as 41.34.93.140. Perhaps the address is VPN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.232.35.139 His associated IP addresses are cheating.Bablos939 (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

'Buzinezz', Like other dolls, it has a similar contribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Buzinezz He'd always gossiped about me for telling the truth about Chinese women. Their absurd remarks are surprisingly consistent. 'I say this based on factual the evidence that both of the google book link shows Korean google translations when they were posting their sources. 41.232.35.139 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 'inserted google books links with .kr, South Korea's domain. All three were doing the same things.Buzinezz (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gadfium#User:Bablos939 Bablos939 (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

70.77.154.228 His misconduct continues horribly. He is repeating the same thing. He is deliberately using a bypass IP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yamla#Hello._Blocked_IP_is_constantly_interrupting.Bablos939 (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , At this point, I think you've added as much evidence as is useful. At some point, a clerk or CU will get around to looking at this in detail.  In the meantime, adding additional comments such as above are just creating more stuff somebody's going to have to read through.  Thanks.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you. his cheating is worse than I thought. So I opened a new investigation page.Should I delete one of the two? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RajmaanBablos939 (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I've now been accused of being a sockpuppet by both parties. Kinda funny. What's not funny is this accusation of racism against me. Bamnamu (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Related: Sockpuppet investigations/Chinese-proti -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Watersinfalls is to the recent set of accounts that were blocked by Bbb23 as socks of Sockpuppet investigations/Rajmaan, including Sloosher and Buzinezz. I'm not sure what you want us to do with those IPs, but given the geolocation alone, they probably aren't even all related to each other. I'd recommend moving this case to Rajmaan and closing. ST47 (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I can't see Rajmaan's contribution. but the contribution of his dolls can be seen. 1)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Baternik&offset=&limit=500&target=Baternik Sockpuppets Baternik is very interested in history related to China or Central Asia. They are all obsessed with editing 'Xianbei'.

2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage/Archive_2#There_are_many_misinterpreting_the_source_about_Chinese_intermarrige. Rajmaan's dolls are obsessed with original research on genes. Shinoshijak is the same as history.

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage 'Shinoshijak' is a recently created account. He was doing a completely different edit and then suddenly appeared when the other dolls(Watersinfalls, Buzinezz) were blocked. 'Shinoshijak' had never edited in interracial marriages before. Bablos939 (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you're going to keep opening SPIs, please give us something we can work with. As far as I can see, there's no correlation between when Shinoshijak started editing compared to when Watersinfalls and Buzinezz were blocked.  If you have specific evidence that there's socking going on, please present it in the form of diffs, i.e. editor1 made this edit, and editor2 made that edit.  Vagues assertions of socking, links to talk pages, etc, aren't useful.  At this point, this is borderline disruptive because it's making a lot of work for people to process your requests. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 8 June 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

 * No response to my request for MoreInfo. Closing with no action taken.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInterracial_marriage&type=revision&diff=962208840&oldid=962151465

He is constantly interrupting the debate and repeating lies by IP. he is Watersinfalls. He is constantly rambling on about nonsense that has nothing to do with the talk. It's exactly the same behavior as the other dolls.Bablos939 (talk) 10:05, 15 June 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
Closing this with no action taken. I have requested that Bablos939 refrain from participating in SPI until they get more practical experience. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


related to : [] related to : [],related to : [], related to : [] Above all, I apologize to you. I took your advice and tried not to ask for this investigation as much as possible.But he is constantly threatening me by creating IDs and causing serious damage to the talk page.He proved himself to be the same as the previous dolls. (1)He is the only person who mentions Korea in a debate unrelated to Korea.[][] He is the same as 'Buzinezz'. This debate has nothing to do with Korea from the past..... (2)He's threatening me with the same external site. [] Please compare the links: [][] (3)He even indirectly testified to the same person as the blocked IP [] He shares the point with his other dolls. Bablos939 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

(4)'Vamlos' is obsessed only with 'Interracial marriage'.Please refer to his contribution details. He's even exploiting the fact that I can't ask for an investigation often.[] Bablos939 (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Actually, I think this is worth investigation. Both editors have an unusual interest in the Interracial marriage article as well as filing SPI complaints against editors they disagree with. There is also this second malformed SPI report against Vamlos that seems to unite these three editors. Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This is not a SPI, it's a rant. The filer, Bablos939, has previously been warned not to open any more SPIs.  Closing with no action taken.  Will issue a sterner warning to Bablos939. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( originally filed under this user)


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

'''Watersinfalls is sockpuppet, and It has a history of suing me for nothing to do with editing war. '''https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chinese-proti/Archive#30_May_2020 But there was a person with the same activity as that person

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chinese-proti/Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bablos939
 * Watersinfalls sued Bablos939 and Maomao4321
 * Vamlos sued Maomao4321 and Bablos939.
 * For Maomao4321 '06:53, 7 June 2020  : last contribution
 * For Vamlos '15:48, 25 September 2020 : initial contribution

I don't know why Vamlos sued Maomao4321. They must have some bad connection from a previous life.Vamlos is still pissed off before Vamlos was born.

Let we click contribs
 * Watersinfalls has a habit of writing very long messages when writing something in Talk stage. : Talk:Interracial marriage
 * Vamlos has a habit of writing very long messages when writing something in Talk stage. : Talk:Interracial marriage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chinese-proti/Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bablos939
 * Watersinfalls is showing unhealthy interest in South Korean women.
 * Vamlos is showing unhealthy interest in South Korean women.

All they're interested in Talk:Interracial_marriage. Their starting line is the same.
 * Watersinfalls is Single-purpose account : Talk:Interracial_marriage
 * Vamlos is Single-purpose account : Talk:Interracial_marriage

They knew each other from before. or Vamlos made wikipedia character to attack Bablos939. I suppose that it is just possible. I feel the latter to be the case.
 * Vamlos - Bablos939, The two words are spelled differently but pronounced the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajmaan/Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vamlos/Archive
 * Prestigious USER:Liz suspected Vamlos wasn’t a normal user. Vamlos is Sockpuppet.
 * Other user suspected Vamlos wasn’t a regular user. Vamlos is Sockpuppet.


 * I have never met Rajmaan`s other sockpuppet but I found that It likes Asian history.
 * Vamlos likes Asian history too.

They are one and the same. Skyslandscanner (talk) 10:27, 20 October 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

 * This was mis-filed under the old case name, Watersinfalls. It's bogus, but preserving it instead of just deleting because it forms part of the extended history. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet_investigations/Bablos939 -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:RoySmith and User:Pppery, there is now a chronology of what happened to User:Rajmaan, and a list of all his different identities. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User is making similar edits in the same vein as Rajmaan (similar focuses on crimes against Muslim minorities, intermarriages, genetics, and sexual crimes, often with cites to Google Books with full quotes in the url). Also, the user shows competence beyond a new editor and apparently waited more than a week before making big edits on the new account. Requesting CU due to Rajmaan's long history of sockpuppetry and use of sleeper accounts (as in the current case)

Past SPI archives brought up several patterns identifying Rajmaan's editing habits, such as:


 * starts with an edit to one article, then pushes the same data across multiple articles. Solniun does the same, for example adding information about Toi invasion in articles tangentially related to the topic:


 * spend much of his time in China Muslims and dynasties topics that resulted the need of major cleaning to undo his edits. Solniun does the same, for example: (compared with old sock: )


 * undue focus on sexual crimes, compare for example: these diffs onr rape and prostitution

I also noticed a pattern of including full quotes in the URL when citing to Google Books, compare previous sock with current user  _dk (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Posting a history of the many user renames involved (originally posted at user talk:RoySmith, where I was asked to post this here) What should probably happen is that this case be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Milktaco (the current username of the master), and that User:DregerClock and User:Milktaco get tagged as a sockpuppet and a sockpuppeteer respectively instead of redirecting to userpages of uses who used the same username many years ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) On November 8, 2006, an account named "Milktaco" was created.
 * 2) They were renamed to "Dividing" on February 27, 2008.
 * 3) Dividing last edited in 2017 and is unrelated to the Rajmaan sockfarm.
 * 4) On February 16, 2008, an account named "DregerClock" was created.
 * 5) That username was deemed inappropriate since they created the article Dreger clock (see User_talk:OChistory), and they were renamed to "OChistory" on February 28, 2008.
 * 6) OChistory last edited in 2011 and is unrelated to the Rajmaan sockfarm.
 * 7) On 27 September 2012, an account named "Rajmaan" was created.
 * 8) They were renamed to "Incrassate" in October 2017. (This doesn't seem to be logged properly for some reason, but it definitely happened).
 * 9) They were renamed to "Frowardem" in March 2018. (I can't find this logged in the English Wikipedia, but it is logged on Meta)
 * 10) This is the "Rajmaan" who was blocked for sock puppetry on June 8, 2018.
 * 11) They were renamed to "Milktaco" on June 14, 2018 (log entry). This rename should clearly not have happened.
 * 12) A new "Rajmaan", unrelated to the previous one, was created in October 2017.
 * 13) They were renamed to "DregerClock" on June 13, 2018.
 * 14) They were blocked as a sock puppet of "Rajmaan" (then actually called "Frowardem") on June 8, 2018.
 * 15) A new "Incrassate", unrelated to the previous one, was created on March 24, 2018, and blocked as a sock puppet on June 8, 2018 without ever being renamed.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * this is really confusing. In addition to all the normal sockery, there's also been a bunch of user renames.  There's probably people better at log archaeology than me, but I've found  and .  There appear to have been two distinct users named Rajmaan, one with 30469 edits, another with 22 edits.  I don't understand how this is possible.  All of:
 * appear to be the same account, through various user renames. I don't remember how I found my way to this redacted entry, but maybe  could shed some light?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * appear to be the same account, through various user renames. I don't remember how I found my way to this redacted entry, but maybe  could shed some light?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * appear to be the same account, through various user renames. I don't remember how I found my way to this redacted entry, but maybe  could shed some light?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * appear to be the same account, through various user renames. I don't remember how I found my way to this redacted entry, but maybe  could shed some light?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * appear to be the same account, through various user renames. I don't remember how I found my way to this redacted entry, but maybe  could shed some light?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * To save other people some time, start reading the archives at 25 May 2018, specifically the Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - I know everything is stale, but I'm assuming there's some additional notes to compare to. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unclear that a checkuser can do anything here. Who can we compare User:Solniun against? I didn't find any relevant notes in the CU wiki. Perhaps there some reason to believe that or  could be the same guy? (I found those names by looking for links in the above archive). The only other checkuser whose name I could see in the Rajmaan records was Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , The more I read on this case, the more confused I become. My original thought was that Valmos didn't really belong with this case, and I was thinking more of checking Solniun against notes that may have been kept about earlier CU runs.
 * But, since you suggested Solniun might be Valmos, I did some more digging in that direction, and found they do have some overlap on Xianbei and Haplogroup C-M217, and close to each other in time. So, maybe Solniun being a Vamlos sock isn't so far-fetched.  Not sure what that says about any relationship to Rajmann. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this after some time away, I took a closer look at Solniun vs cu-confirmed sock Baternik and I'm convinced they're the same. It's not just the extensive overlap in articles edited, but the style of writing.  It's unfortunate there's nothing in CU-wiki, so I'll just have to call this suspected.  Blocked and tagged, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this after some time away, I took a closer look at Solniun vs cu-confirmed sock Baternik and I'm convinced they're the same. It's not just the extensive overlap in articles edited, but the style of writing.  It's unfortunate there's nothing in CU-wiki, so I'll just have to call this suspected.  Blocked and tagged, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Bestokuyam and Milktaco both share a focus on prostitution, particularly of non-Chinese women.

Bestokuyam and Milktaco are both major contributors to Zhu Shugui, an obscure article that has a daily average of 12 pageviews. Bestokuyam added information about an interethnic concubinage. Milktaco is highly focused on intermarriage and sex, particularly involving non-Chinese women, as evidenced by his sockpuppet Buzinezz.

Bestokuyam has the same habit as Milktaco of copy-pasting the same content in quick succession across many different articles. Here are some examples (more can be provided if requested):


 * Baternik, a blocked sockpuppet (in chronological order):


 * Solniun, a recently blocked sockpuppet (in chronological order):


 * Solniun, regarding guest prostitution (in chronological order):


 * Bestokuyam, regarding Japanese prostitution (in chronological order):


 * Bestokuyam, regarding Korean prostitution (in chronological order, with emphasis on "Okuyi Kim"):

According to Google, "Okuyi Kim" is nonexistent. Regarding this information, Bestokuyam cited a website called "Tokyo Kinky", which is obviously not a reliable source. I bring this up because of the following:

Bestokuyam reintroduced sources originally added by Milktaco that were removed for being unreliable. I know this because I was the one who removed them: rjkoehler.com is a personal blog and Shanghaiist is a tabloid.


 * Milktaco's addition of rjkoehler.com and Shanghaiist:


 * My removal of rjkoehler.com and Shanghaiist in February 2019:


 * Bestokuyam's reintroduction of rjkoehler.com and Shanghaiist (Bestokuyam registered in May 2020):

Bestokuyam's citations only link to archives of rjkoehler.com and Shanghaiist, not the actual pages. That is because both pages are dead. In fact, both websites are dead. You can't even access them on Google anymore. This is proof that Bestokuyam had previous knowledge of these sources that were originally added by Milktaco. Bamnamu (talk) 12:37, 19 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

 * - Endorsing not because there's any doubt (re-adding rjkoehler.com reference vs  for a specific example), but to check for more sleepers and keep the data current.  I'll go ahead and block Bestokuyam in a moment to prevent more damage before CU can get to this.  I'm also going to start upping protection on affected pages to ECP.  Many of these pages are indef semi-protected, and some I see have bounced around back and forth between indef full and indef semi because ECP didn't exist back then. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocking Bestokuyam as suspected for now; pending upgrade to confirmed if the CU data comes back that way. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP data is generally consistent with all the socks (same ISP and region.) This is based on CU log data so I can't give more than "consistent from an ISP standpoint". and  are the only other users on the range with the same device. I'm not familiar with this case, so I'll leave it up to clerks to decide how to handle them. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Leemeain hasn't edited yet, and Tumbler1624 has been making constructive edits for many years, so I'm going to assume neither of those are Rajmaan. I'll retag Bestokuyam as proven, and leave it at that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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


 * 1) Insert Chinese narrative or Chinese website for reference
 * 2) Username is similar to Milktaco
 * 3) The pages they edited often have unusual reference quantity and huge Chinese narratives Rastinition (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I found that some accounts like to insert huge chinese narrative or huge chinese website for reference, such as Coumets‎ or Arorapriyansh333 .They should not be the same person, but I don't know why they want to do this.
 * Some sources are mirrored, and some advertisements put mirrored content in order to increase the number of readings.Coumets or Arorapriyansh333  sometimes put advertisements as the source(those sources have the content they want.I guess they use the keyword google or search in other ways to do this).--Rastinition (talk) 23:06, 9 November 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
See Sockpuppet investigations/Rajmaan.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a lot going on here that I don't understand, but since Milktaco is confirmed to Rajmaan, I'm going to merge this there. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Insufficient evidence to take any action. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

, you've dealt with this case before. I looked on the CU wiki but found no data. I'm posting this because a mysterious user (seriously) emailed me to say that this is where Coumets comes from, and after looking at a few things, I can see how that may make sense. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, I remember this. I remember that my brain hurt a lot the last time I was involved, and now that I've refreshed my memory, my brain is hurting again.  There's multiple user renames here, including an apparent case of going back to their original name via a usurpation.   if you could mail me whatever you've got (or even better, put it up in cuwiki), I'd appreciate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith, I don't have anything more than what I found running CU, so it's probably easiest if you check it for yourself. But yes, I should use CU wiki more (I think that goes for others as well, haha). What I do have, but I am not going to bother you with it, are mysterious emails from two people now, not sent through the Wikipedia system--the one I mentioned, and then four more by someone else who claims that the person who emailed me was a "notorious troll from 4chan". I'm wondering if I shouldn't forward some of that stuff to ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * RoySmith, more mysterious emails! more accounts! So supposedly this is a sock edit--but I don't really get it: a. I'm struggling to find what's wrong with that edit (so I don't see why the sock would be socking over it), and b. don't people know that people don't like anonymous emails? Drmies (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I think User-duck,Qiushufang or YLoGM may be related, there is no evidence but intuition.
 * It’s okay to ignore my message--Rastinition (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've come back to this a few times, but I'm not seeing any evidence that Coumets, Caoersame, or Bouterman are connected to this case. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

Overlap in articles edited by Crutnik and Milktaco (the sockpuppeteer who originally went by "Rajmaan")
 * Currently, Crutnik has edited 17 articles in total; 10 of them overlap.

Overlap in subject matter
 * Leniency toward Han Chinese and/or harshness toward non-Han Chinese by the Mongols
 * Crutnik:
 * Sockpuppets:
 * Concubinage, slavery, and/or interracial marriage of non-Han Chinese women
 * Crutnik:
 * Sockpuppets:
 * Interracial marriage of Han Chinese men and non-Han Chinese women
 * Crutnik:
 * Sockpuppets: ,
 * (Accounts examined: Baternik, Bestokuyam, Solniun, Buzinezz, Qsaranb, Qeccec, Hicklitwak)

Overlap in behavior
 * Crutnik has a habit of copy-pasting the same material in quick succession across many different articles:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * This habit is identical to that of the sockpuppeteer; please read 06 November 2020 and 19 November 2020.

Similarity in naming: Crutnik and Baternik, a confirmed sockpuppet
 * Overlap in articles edited by Baternik: 6 out of 17
 * Overlap in subject matter added by Baternik:
 * Leniency toward Han Chinese and/or harshness toward non-Han Chinese by the Mongols:
 * Concubinage, slavery, and/or interracial marriage of non-Han Chinese women:
 * Interracial marriage of Han Chinese men and non-Han Chinese women:
 * Overlap in behavior by Baternik: copy-pasting
 * 
 * 
 * (many more can be provided)

Crutnik (registered on 9 March 2022) copied material that had originally been added by Baternik in 2019
 * Crutnik copied within Wikipedia three times in total. #1 and #2 were copied from Baternik. #3 was copied from a now stale throwaway called Zukatnikur, who had the same agenda (leniency toward Han Chinese and/or harshness toward non-Han Chinese by the Mongols) and the same habit (copy-pasting the same material in quick succession across many different articles) as Crutnik and the sockpuppeteer.

Bamnamu (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Bamnamu (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Is User:OChistory in any way involved? If not, which it seems likely it's not, then I think DregerClock is the best name here - I see no evidence Watersinfalls is the same person but if that evidence exists and there's a reason I don't know it then Watersinfalls is the best name casualdejekyll  15:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Casualdejekyll OChistory hasn't edited in almost 11 years. What makes you think they're related? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith - User talk:DregerClock. To be perfectly honest I did say "seems likely it's not [related]" - it's a shot in the dark type thing. casualdejekyll  14:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding a rename, please read this comment by Pppery: Milktaco is older than DregerClock and Watersinfalls. Bamnamu (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so this also removes OChistory from the equation. Makes sense. casualdejekyll  14:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My brain has been sufficiently broken by this case... Sockpuppet investigations/Rajmaan/Archive seems to support that Rajmaan -> Incrassate -> Frowardem -> MilkTaco is the same person as Rajmaan -> DregerClock. I don't think that was ever in dispute though. DregerClock -> OChistory and MilkTaco -> Dividing are unrelated[?] but it doesn't really matter because they haven't edited in years. So, with all of that taken into account, I support this case being moved to Sockpuppet_investigations/MilkTaco. Or at least moved somewhere, because Rajmaan doesn't exist anymore. casualdejekyll  15:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Although, Tumbler1624 was mentioned in the archives and is older than MilkTaco... I'm just gonna throw my arms up at this one. This is too much casualdejekyll  15:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * These are all confirmed to each other: but I don't have any good data to tie them back to Rajmaan.  Based on the general history of this case, and the behavior presented here, I'll dual-tag these. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - Rajmaan no longer exists. There have been a long string of renames that make the trail really messy.  Search the archives for "rename" and "usurp" for the details.  I think it would make sense to move this case to whatever the oldest active account is and clean up the tagging to avoid future confusion.  Might be  but I'm not even sure about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * who may have an opinion on the case rename. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * God, I hate renames of blocked accounts, particularly socks. What about ?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd caution people to not read too much into username similarities (i.e. Crutnik vs Baternik), lest we turn our gaze to the nefarious . -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This summary aligns with my assessment of the situation; that Rajmaan --> Incrassate --> Frowardem --> Milktaco. Confusing the matter is that a number of these accounts were subsequently re-created, and some of those accounts were subsequently renamed. Given the case history, and that this remains the oldest substantive account, I have moved the SPI from Sockpuppet investigations/Rajmaan to Sockpuppet investigations/Milktaco. The accounts in this report have been re-tagged. Closing. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
New account with the same focus on war atrocities, sexual violence, and massive copypasting of content to articles. Seems like a WP:DUCK to me. Qiushufang (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Added user Sumaiyahle with similar edits to Rajmaan created five days after Zustrode stopped editing. First edit was a to-do-list on the same topic as Rajmaan back in 2014: Han Chinese chauvinism and Koreans in ethnic classification of the Yuan dynasty. I see some overlap in the socks' edits on interracial marriage and sexual crimes. Familiarity with to-do-list and large detailed edit summaries suggest this is not a new user despite pretending otherwise. The name also seems superficially similar to Rajmaan, though this probably doesn't mean anything, but the idea that a Korean nationalist, as their content suggests, would choose such a name seems dubious. Qiushufang (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Same topic (Mongols and Mongol Empire) as the last batch of socks such as Crutnik. Seems like a WP:DUCK to me. Qiushufang (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Adding Yaujj13. An older account but with the same interests: China, Mongols, Yuan dynasty, Islam, minorities, sexual assault/slavery, prostitution, interracial marriage:   . Mass copy pasting with pre-prepared content. Many overlapping articles with Milktaco:  with specific interests such as the Moro people. Qiushufang (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I can't quite get to confirmed for Zustrode, so I'll just tag them as proven. The others appear to be ❌ RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Same obsession with interracial relationships, Islam, China, and mass copy pasting content. Qiushufang (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

The subject focus is characteristic of Rajmaan/Milktaco, as is the excessive use of quotations and pasting the same lengthy text in multiple articles, e.g. Kanguole 10:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hongwu Emperor, Ming dynasty, Interracial marriage, Miscegenation, Semu, Islam in China, History of Islam in China, Islam during the Ming dynasty, Kipchaks, Turkic peoples

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * due to proxy use RoySmith (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Dealt with below. Spicy (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Each of these users shares the same basic characteristics. Extensive edits take place on the day the account was created, or for a short time afterwards; then the account is abandoned, and never returned to again. They have all shown interest in the Islam/China area (e.g. Semu or Islam in China), and often copy-paste the same information into multiple articles. Eyesacker is the most recent account (created 10 February) and an excellent type specimen for all these behaviours, which are consistent with previous Milktaco socks.

I was not previously familiar with this, but upon digging down the rabbit hole, I felt pretty sure there was a pattern. When I found there was a long-term sockmaster with interest in the China-Islam intersection, I almost started quacking myself. Pinging as the admin who seems most familiar with this case. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Protecting the most targeted pages looks like a good idea. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I've just found . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Last edit was 2 years ago. Meh. RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll just add to a list of older ones I run across: &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the number of 'taco socks we know we've found, I have no doubt that we've missed more than a few. WP:BLOCKP says Blocks should be used to ... prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia  It's hard to be imminent or continuing when you haven't edited in a year or more, so here in sock central, we tend to ignore those. RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, this is just so I can remember which pages to keep an eye on. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Lurk shirk shows typical Rajmaan/Milktaco behaviour, but Sgnpkd's history is quite different. Kanguole 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting here that Sgnpkd was later unblocked. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This gets a little complicated. This bunch (group A) are all ✅ to each other: .  They are also  to the bunch I blocked in 28 April 2022, and to this bunch (group B) that were blocked in December 2022 but never seemed to have made it to an SPI report:
 * I'm going to mark all those as proven. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more that I haven't found, but if somebody else wants to pick up the hunt, there's notes in cuwiki you can use as a starting point.  My suggestion is to just get aggressive about semi-protecting (if not WP:ECP) all of their targets for a couple of years. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that some of these accounts (for example and ) are older than Milktaco.  Maybe we want to rename the case?  Or maybe just leave it at the current name because it's been known by that for so long but add a note to the header for future reference? RoySmith (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - I've come back to this and would appreciate if another CU would also take a look, particularly on whether I correctly identified and . RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ =  =  (which I have blocked). Technically,  =  = . So the two accounts are correctly identified. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ... Spicy (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can add:
 * Spicy (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think renaming the case would be a good idea at this point. Spicy (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Account created in January but first edit on 3 March 2024. First edit is a single detailed copy paste with focus on rape, atrocities, China, interracial - same topics and edit style as Milktaco. Similar food based name. Qiushufang (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Adding Candy stoned, another food based name account linked to Milktaco that made similar wartime sexual atrocity content on the same page. Qiushufang (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * See similarity between these edits (rape of Yulu's daughters). Qiushufang (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Adding Cooking canner, another food based name focused on China, race, interracial relationships. - would it be alright to have a second look at these accounts. I'm seeing a handful of culinary based names over the past few years all focused on Manchus/China/sexual wartime atrocity with mass copy pasting behavior. Qiushufang (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Adding Coravodoa who seems to be the original editor for the content copy pasted by Mango. Qiushufang (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Adding Serenebea. Same interests as all the other accounts. Created page for Yulu (viceroy), who was the subject of Milktaco sock Candy and Mango's edits . Copy pasted content added by Coravodoa on Yulu. Copy pasted content added by another sock Coumets. Qiushufang (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Adding Sodoron. Similar topics, edited Dungan Revolt (1895–1896) like Milktaco with mass copy pasting behavior. Made large edits to same page as sock Coumets . Serenebea restored content added by sock Coumets. Sodoron, Coumets, Serenebea have all edited and disseminated the same content. I just realized Coumets was not confirmed to Milktaco but is still a sock reported on their SPI. Qiushufang (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a pattern of long term additions on the same subjects by accounts that all reference and add on to each other but are only active for a couple of months at most. Coravodoa, Candy stoned (Milktaco sock), and Cooking canner each made large additions to Manchu people in 2021 2022 2023 respectively. Coravodoa has heavy matches with Milktaco's interests. Mangopapayafruit copy pasted Corovodoa's content. Serenebea, Candy stoned, and Mangopapayafruit just happen to all have the same interest and edited content related to Yulu. The number of times each account references or builds on top of each other is too much to count. Qiushufang (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * Sodoron and Coravodoa seem rather likely, considering what I have seen of Milktaco's editing style and preoccupations. Wouldn't surprise me if there was WP:MEAT with slightly different editing styles going on with the others. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I'm having trouble understanding "same edit style" when all they've done is copy-paste some text from another article. Historically, this case has had a ton of socks, but I'm hesitant to run a check just based on what I see so far.  The repeated edit-undo-restore pattern doesn't match any Milktaco behavior I'm familiar with, but if you know of any other examples of that, please ping me. RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Insufficient evidence to show enough of a connection between Mangopapayafruit and Milktaco, and the rest are stale. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Wizardly397 exhibits a pattern similar to Milktaco's repeated behavior of successively copy-pasting material targeting non-Han Chinese ethnicities across several different articles shortly after creating a throwaway. For a recent precedent, please see the recently blocked Milktaco sockpuppet, who engaged in a similar behavior: Both targeted Muslim ethnic minorities in China, and both edited Islam during the Qing dynasty. Bamnamu (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Definitely a Milktaco sock. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I checked but found nothing (nothing but a VPN, apparently). I can see the similarities with Crucatius and others, but I'm no expert on this sock and I'm a bit hesitant to push that button., are you? Drmies (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Drmies Based on some notes in cuwiki and edits to Christianity in China by both accounts, I'd say there's a very good chance and  are the same person. RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
9 edits so far, all are historical Milktaco spots for adding large non-sequitur, non-enyclopedic paragraphs about ethnography and race in inner asia. Remsense 诉  04:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Seems to have adjusted previous tactic of copy-pasting large chunks of text, but the topics edited are Milktaco all over. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You mean to tell me most of the stuff that was pasted were all from a blocked user? I would never make such a mistake ( If I knew it was a blocked user's work). A few of the things I edited are original but most of them I edited are already posted in forums. Someone said I could quickly get ranked up by being the fastest to contribute to wikipedia so I tried it. The information and book source was all provided with me (let me explain: it was already there and I checked it and though there was no problem. I did not follow any persons order to edit, I did it for my own benefit). I though it was all genuine because that was the book in the source says anyway. I though the risks are nearly zero but I had no idea it was from someone else who set me up.


 * AirshipJungleman29 (talk) : You should have just learned to tell me that I was editing stuff similar to Milktaco. Judging from it's history this Milktaco is clearly a VPN master that edits wikipedia as many time he likes and don't even to explain anything like I need to.


 * I do not want to get blocked so quickly like this, is unfair on me. HabichuelasBeans (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Evidence that I'm not Milktaco
 * As you can clearly see this Milktaco (and his other sock VPN accounts) focuses on Chinese history, generals, marriages of Chinese minorities ect. I on the hand edited marriages in Russia between Russian slavs and Turkic ethnic groups like Tartars and Bashkir Tartars who are who are generally very white looking. I added interracial marriage on both sides of the gender, he added only males.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interracial_marriage&diff=prev&oldid=1223463906


 * It's obvious, I see a lot of correlation between my edits and Milktaco, I didn't realize it was mainly focusing on Chinese. Except for my edit on interracial russian and Pannonian Avars origins, and culture yenesei kyrgyz which should have nothing to do with him. I wanted to edit on Turkic influence in Russia aswell as Europe.


 * Another evidence I'm not this guy because he uses VPN and I'm using my computer IP. If I was this guy I wouldn't even be using my home IP address which has been as long as several years the same and recently unblocked.HabichuelasBeans (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This account has just been blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/Vamlos. Kanguole 21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing case, user already blocked as a sockpuppet of Vamlos. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)