Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nickaang/Archive

05 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Appears to be a newly created account used to "Stack" AfD !Votes. red dog six (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I've never ever used multiple accounts to vote in AfD since votes are not the factor for reaching a consensus but the logic and references presented on the votes. :( Anyways, since the investigation has been opened so the Admin will soon revealed that the account don't belongs to me. -- Mad  Moron  20:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Before you protest too loudly, I would suggest looking here .   PeterWesco (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The only edit made by User:Vighu10081 is on the deletion discussion and the account was created on the same day the deletion discussion started. Another suspected sockpuppet User:Johnharri was created today and his first and only vote is in the deletion discussion. I request to run a checkuser against Johnharri as well. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  17:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Admins please reference the already completed check user that found madmoron to be part of a very large list of sockpuppets associated with already banned spammer: voidz.    That Sockpuppet Investigation is here:   PeterWesco (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - . Rschen7754 20:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Put on hold. There is overlap with this SPI] and I am currently connecting the dots. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 22:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * has ✅
 * (already blocked for spamming)
 * And there is overlap between most, but not all, of these. As such, it looks like a serial sockpuppeting case, including with one spammer. Reviewing for disposition, and possible moving if one is older than current master.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (already blocked for spamming)
 * And there is overlap between most, but not all, of these. As such, it looks like a serial sockpuppeting case, including with one spammer. Reviewing for disposition, and possible moving if one is older than current master.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (already blocked for spamming)
 * And there is overlap between most, but not all, of these. As such, it looks like a serial sockpuppeting case, including with one spammer. Reviewing for disposition, and possible moving if one is older than current master.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And there is overlap between most, but not all, of these. As such, it looks like a serial sockpuppeting case, including with one spammer. Reviewing for disposition, and possible moving if one is older than current master.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And there is overlap between most, but not all, of these. As such, it looks like a serial sockpuppeting case, including with one spammer. Reviewing for disposition, and possible moving if one is older than current master.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And there is overlap between most, but not all, of these. As such, it looks like a serial sockpuppeting case, including with one spammer. Reviewing for disposition, and possible moving if one is older than current master.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And there is overlap between most, but not all, of these. As such, it looks like a serial sockpuppeting case, including with one spammer. Reviewing for disposition, and possible moving if one is older than current master.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And there is overlap between most, but not all, of these. As such, it looks like a serial sockpuppeting case, including with one spammer. Reviewing for disposition, and possible moving if one is older than current master.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And there is overlap between most, but not all, of these. As such, it looks like a serial sockpuppeting case, including with one spammer. Reviewing for disposition, and possible moving if one is older than current master.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And there is overlap between most, but not all, of these. As such, it looks like a serial sockpuppeting case, including with one spammer. Reviewing for disposition, and possible moving if one is older than current master.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Changed master to oldest confirmed account, Nickaang. Blocked and tagged this group.  The two mentioned at the top of this report have not been checked by a CU that I am aware of.  More evidence is likely needed and should be reviewed by another admin before closing.  Indef blocking the connected group due to serial sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Although not linked via CU to this master, they are linked to each other in the same case above, and contribs link them to this master
 * Additionally, the deleted contribs of links him to the master as well.  All three indef blocked, and tagged.  Socks keep falling out of the drawer.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the deleted contribs of links him to the master as well.  All three indef blocked, and tagged.  Socks keep falling out of the drawer.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the deleted contribs of links him to the master as well.  All three indef blocked, and tagged.  Socks keep falling out of the drawer.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, think I'm done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Moving to hold, I need to look at something. --Rschen7754 02:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I blocked as a likely sock and for username violation, trying to create confusion with PeterWesco, who started the AFD this socks was deleting the tags for.  Came up at ANI, documenting it here.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're done here, at least at SPI. --Rschen7754 03:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing Vighu10081 and Johnharri are meatpuppets or just unlinked sockpuppets, but they have quit editing and it is difficult to link without more edits. I am closing without prejudice to reconsider this accounts at a later date. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

13 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Tkgaatyum's only edits have been promotional edits to a spam page created by User:Ceecily, a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet. Checkuser would be welcome. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2013 (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 as this is likely another sock of the spammer. Note that the edits are now at Special:Undelete/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PFOSH. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, Tkgaatyum is ❌ to Nickaang, et al. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Behavioural evidence is suggestive, but not conclusive, so I am willing to close this investigation. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

21 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

His contributions within 30 minutes of creating the account include: Also nominating the two IP SPA socks which voted to keep at WP:Articles for deletion/Raj Luhar with similarly odd rationale. Checkuser might be needed. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Raj Luhar, created by User:Nickaang sock User:Tanweer Khan, first two IP socks voted against on the grounds of "per norms", then new account User:JayJaykar voted to keep also on the grounds of "per norms";
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Matthew Fraser (psychic), created by User:Nickaang sock User:Tanweer Khan, voted to keep;
 * creating a user page almost identical to mine;
 * creating an article with a promotional tone at and linking to that from two other articles;
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Adverse (hip hop artist), voted to keep on an AFD where I wasn't the nominator but in which I've been having a long discussion with another editor;
 * WP:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_Global_Trading, voted to delete immediately after I voted to keep, presumably just to annoy after I nominated several of Tanweer Khan's spam articles for speedy deletion G5/G11.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Blocked: quack. I haven't filed the paperwork yet (templates etc). Drmies (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked by myself and others. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 16:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

25 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

First edits are requesting undeletion for articles:  that were hit by Nickaang socks in the past:   If this isn't enough I have more evidence through OTRS. --Rschen7754 02:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

is currently blocked for creating attack pages and claimed via IRC that, who is also interested in the band Wedlock, is his brother editing from the same PC. Might be worth another look. See also User talk:Marcus.lui for his unblock request. Huon (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And the next blocked user was in IRC: said that  is his wife (and he had disclosed the relation between those accounts on his user page), but had no explanation for the connection between their two accounts and the others. For what it's worth, both Y2kdsp007 and Marcus.lui used static IP addresses in IRC that geolocated to vastly different parts of India. Huon (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's easy enough to do with open proxies. Heck, even without open proxies, it's easy enough to do.  I wouldn't put too much stock in that - they obviously aren't going to join IRC with the same IP address.  All of these are spammy/editor for hire type accounts, so I'm not shedding too many tears if there are some false positives in there. --B (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And Marcus.lui is back: Huon (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked. --B (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * for sleeper check - looking at article histories I'm sure there's more out there. Rschen7754 02:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Very, , , . I can't really connect them to anyone. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  09:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Marcus.lui just gave himself away, so blocking all including . --Rschen7754 11:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Rschen7754 11:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone check as well, pelase?  That user created the spammy article BlockDos, which was edited a few hours later by Bhavana.parihar. --B (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, seems likely to be one in the same with Run4health. --B (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ but ❌ to the above:


 * @Huon: at this point it doesn't matter with this many socks, because it could be either one of them socking. They would have to at least knowing that one or the other is doing it. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  13:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've moved these three over to Sockpuppet investigations/Javamen and blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 16:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How sure are we that Javamen is really a separate individual? One of the characteristics of Nickaang accounts is that they put a brief plausible sounding statement on their user page to justify an interest in obscure topics.  Javaman created Peachtree Petals, which was edited by confirmed Nickaang sock User:Madmoron.  Run4health created BlockDos, which was edited by known Nickaang sock User:Bhavana.parihar.  Unless I'm missing something here, it's pretty darned certain that they are part of the same sock farm.  They may not all be the same physical human being, but they are obviously the same article creation company.  Meanie=Nickaang=Javamen=lots of others. --B (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's two more for you to check:
 * The evidence has been sent privately. --B (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * - Rschen7754 20:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * - Rschen7754 20:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If Zoyapal is a sock of Nickaang, can you look into ? Lark35wioq and Zoyapal both have no contributions other than to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tia Cristy. --B (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * - Rschen7754 05:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Lark35wioq is ❌ to anyone listed here. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep adding questions: would it be possible to check and see if this person is one in the same with Sockpuppet investigations/Meanie/Archive? If so, then we need to extend the G5 deletions back to 2012.  Jessica Billings was created by User:Boatingfaster - a confirmed Meanie sock.  User:Monstermarch added a photo to Jessica Billings, which he claims to have received from the subject (meaning he is also working for her).  Monstermarch was previously suspected of being Nick Aang - Sockpuppet investigations/Vorspire/Archive - but the request was declined without more evidence.  When I look at Monstermarch, he seems to fit the Nick Aang sock pattern perfectly - he makes a few unrelated contributions, he adds a sentence to his user page attempting to justify his interest in obscure things, and starts making COI articles.  I think there's probable cause to believe that Meanie=Boatingfaster=Monstermarch=Nickaang. --B (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Monstermarch=Nickaang just got a little more irrefutable. Please see Special:Undelete/Wedlock_(band), which was the province of Nickaang socks and where Monstermarch is a contributor.  If you look at his other deleted contributions, he had a lot to contributions to this walled garden related to the Wedlock band.  That's a smoking gun that Monstermarch=Nickaang.  Also starring in edits to that deleted article is confirmed Meanie socks User:Canadaindiefilms, User:Boatingfaster, and User:Meanie himself.  I'd say it's pretty darned certain that Meanie = Nickaang.  Can you run a check?  Thanks --B (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, please check . He seems pretty WP:DUCK obvious to be a sock of Run4health/Javaman based on .  (I contend that Run4health/Javaman = Nickaang, regardless of checkuser evidence, as I said above.  Their behavior makes it clear they are all the same person.)  Thanks. --B (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One more: - I'll submit the evidence privately. --B (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * - based on the deleted user contributions, Xmikeditkax seems likely to be Voidz, which is previously established to be Nickaang. --B (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * - based on that user's creation of Luis D Ortiz, which proven Nickaang sock TankThank took over. --B (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * - though I fear that a lot of this has gone stale. Rschen7754 21:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Honestly, I think we have ample evidence to conclude that Meanie=Nickaang, even if the checkuser evidence cannot confirm it.  And even if we can't, I wouldn't lose any sleep over deleting his creations under the theory of we don't reward bad behavior. --B (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that all of the above is potentially making it difficult for a checkuser to process the request. To assist, here is a concise list of the as of yet unresolved questions:
 * Please confirm that the following users are socks of Nickaang:
 * Please see if Meanie might be one in the same with Nickaang. (Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Meanie/Archive.)  I believe that, based on evidence posted above, that Meanie=Boatingfaster=Monstermarch=Nickaang.  The reason that this matters is that if Meanie = Nickaang, then everything created by this sock farm dating back to January should be deleted G5.  Even if it cannot be proven with technical evidence (because they change IPs or whatever), can we make a determination that we, as administrators, believe that they are the same and will treat them as the same person/farm for purposes of G5?
 * Regarding Javamen/Run4health/Suzannebowen, and, I believe, Writeindia, how certain are we that these are different people? I believe, as above, that even if the technical evidence does not bear it out, they would seem, based on contributions, to be in cahoots and should be treated as one for purposes of G5.
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Javamen
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Writeindia
 * I hope the above makes it easier for a Checkuser to tell exactly what I am asking. Thank you. --B (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no technical relation between the users. (aka ❌)
 * 2) All but one user is.
 * 3) As I confirmed above, the first three users are related. Writeindia edits from the other side of the world compared to that group.
 * If you feel there is evidence enough to contradict the CU to issue a block, go ahead. CU is never perfect and can be evaded. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  13:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Javamen/Run4health/Suzannebowen, and, I believe, Writeindia, how certain are we that these are different people? I believe, as above, that even if the technical evidence does not bear it out, they would seem, based on contributions, to be in cahoots and should be treated as one for purposes of G5.
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Javamen
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Writeindia
 * I hope the above makes it easier for a Checkuser to tell exactly what I am asking. Thank you. --B (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no technical relation between the users. (aka ❌)
 * 2) All but one user is.
 * 3) As I confirmed above, the first three users are related. Writeindia edits from the other side of the world compared to that group.
 * If you feel there is evidence enough to contradict the CU to issue a block, go ahead. CU is never perfect and can be evaded. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  13:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope the above makes it easier for a Checkuser to tell exactly what I am asking. Thank you. --B (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no technical relation between the users. (aka ❌)
 * 2) All but one user is.
 * 3) As I confirmed above, the first three users are related. Writeindia edits from the other side of the world compared to that group.
 * If you feel there is evidence enough to contradict the CU to issue a block, go ahead. CU is never perfect and can be evaded. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  13:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel there is evidence enough to contradict the CU to issue a block, go ahead. CU is never perfect and can be evaded. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  13:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Closing as outstanding issues seem resolved. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

10 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

First edits were to create a user page and talk page with templates. Third edit was to create mildly promo Natural Sapphire Company, speedied G5 after creation by a sock of Nickaang. Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - and prepare for another farm. Rschen7754 23:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's that it's related to a previous group blocked as part of this SPI. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing since nothing else was found. Rschen7754 04:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

06 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Spammy article on the Natural Sapphire Company has been deleted several times after recreation by a Sockpuppet investigations/Nickaang/Archive.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Natural Sapphire Company showed up, created by Bittu8999, a user with no other edits. RadioFan (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2013 (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

 * Bittu8999 blocked based on behavior and username match to Bittu899. Vighu10081 has already been investigated previously and rejected, please do not resubmit rejected investigations without new evidence. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

26 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Only interested in Preity Uupala, a Nickaang sock creation. Jmcaafferty appears to have been created to stack votes at Articles for deletion/Preity Uupala. Both commented both at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Preity Uupala ( and ) and the afd. Even if not both Nickaang it is likely Jmafferty is Mshorr. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2013 (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

 * Closed. I don't see enough evidence that these two are Nickaang. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

03 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Added by User:B on March 17, 2015
 * Added by User:B on March 17, 2015
 * Added by User:B on March 17, 2015
 * Added by User:B on March 17, 2015
 * Added by User:B on March 17, 2015


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Nickaang runs a paid editing site at https://www.fiverr.com/nickaang/create-a-wikipedia-page ... he creates articles about mostly non-notable people and has had a huge number of accounts over the years.


 * , who was blocked separately as a sock of, created the article Ignite Visibility (a company owned by Mr. John E. Lincoln). At the fiverr site, johnelincoln thanked Nick Aang for his work right after this article was created, thus Binvox = MehulWB = Nick Aang.  I'm providing this link not for the sake of proving the connection (the connection is obvious), but simply because it provides a non-stale account for the checkuser.


 * is the one account I have listed above that is probably not stale. Bosedekio has created John E. Lincoln, which, as above, is a Nick Aang customer.


 * Bemanna (probably stale) created NickAang customer Blue Fountain Media and an article about its CEO Gabriel Shaoolian, as well as several other borderline notable company articles, which, even though I can't prove they were NickAang articles, sure sound like it.


 * Briostone (last edited in August 2014, so possibly stale) created Nickaang customer RPMWEST.


 * Bzalien (last edited September 2014) heavily modified Nickaang customer Sergio Kato on two occasions - July 2014 and September 2014. On both occasions, "Sergiokatofilms" thanked Nick at the fiverr page.

Thanks, --B (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC) B (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2015 (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 is very confusing, particularly as I'm not familiar with this master. First, let's go over each of the listed accounts: Thus, the only account that is not stale for CU purposes is Bosedekio. The only way to run a CU against that account is, as you say, to use Binvox. You explain the relationship, although that begs the question as to whether Sockpuppet investigations/MehulWB should be merged with this case (MehulWB was created later than Nickaang). More important, you don't provide off-site links for the relationship, and it seems like it's a lot to hang our hats on anyway.
 * Nickaang was created on May 12, 2011, and last edited March 13, 2013. It is obviously stale.
 * Bosedekio was created on February 11, 2015, and last edited on March 1, 2015.
 * Briostone was created on April 28, 2014, and last edited on August 18, 2014. It is stale.
 * Bemanna was created on May 31, 2010, and last edited on February 3, 2014. It is obviously stale. It is older than the master.
 * Bzalien was created on July 13, 2014, and last edited on September 28, 2014. It is stale.

As to behavioral blocks for the stale accounts, all of those accounts seem to have been abandoned, so is it really necessary to make a finding that they are socks and block them? In addition, we have the problem, as already noted, with Bemanna, who if we blocked as a sock, would become the new master.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No response to my concerns. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've unarchived and reopened this as B did not receive my notification and has more evidence to present.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you go to and scroll down, you see lots of people thanking NickAang for the work he did creating their Wikipedia page.  If you click "Show More", you get some more of them.  Most of them are names that I have no earthly idea what article they are thanking Nick for creating; picking out a random example, I couldn't begin to guess what article Nick created for "Norman247".  (Now, he thanked Nick a month ago, so if I were to happen upon a spammy article for a non-notable company whose CEO is Norman, and whose creator fits the pattern of the Nick Aang accounts, we could guess that we've found it.)
 * For some of them, on the other hand, it's blatantly obvious what article they are thanking him for. For example, "Candymanvending" thanked Nick four months ago.  Well, Draft:Andre Bramwell (created by ) and Candyman Vending (created by ) both are suspicious and seem at least somewhat likely to be NickAang sockpuppets.  Amakaullu, in fact, I see has already been blocked as a MehulWB sockpuppet.
 * Second example: Jasondoshi thanked Nick five months ago. Loanscribe's founder is Jason Doshi and that article was created almost exactly five months ago.  So I'd bet  is another Nick Aang account.  (This account is not blocked, but it does not have any edits recent enough for checkuser.)
 * Unfortunately, there's no way to directly link to the particular entry of Nick being thanked - you have to scroll down to it. I hope this explanation helps. --B (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . You have to click "Show More" multiple times, btw. I'm going to comment on each one in case I'm missing something. The user Candymenvending thanked Nick four months ago, which would be mid-November 2014. The article that relates to that is the now-deleted Candyman Vending Service. That article was created less than a month ago by the user who was blocked by a CU as a puppet of another master, MehulWB. The draft article on Andre Bramwell (related to the company Candyman) was created by a different user, Theandreb, about 3 months ago (not 4). The timings don't make sense to me. Why would Candyman thank Nick before the articles were created? Also, there's still the problem with MehulWB because, by your logic, MehulWB, instead of being a master, would be a sock of Nick as MehulWB was created years later than Nick. There've been a fair number of CUs run against accounts at Sockpuppet investigations/MehulWB, including one opened and closed today. Perhaps has an opinion on these issues?
 * The timing on the Jason Doshi-related Loanscribe fits nicely. It was indeed created five months ago.
 * How about if we tackle this from a different angle? Can you come up with diffs comparing the alleged Nick puppets with the master showing similar behavioral characteristics? Given the CU issues, that would certainly help.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By way of preface, there may not be anything left to do here as far as a checkuser since the one non-stale account I had identified - Bosedekio - has been blocked as a MehulWB sock. I suppose the one thing potentially useful would be an "official" ruling that Nickaang = MehulWB, which means that when we're deleting creations of MehulWB socks, we can do so going back a lot further since Nick Aang was banned before MehulWB.
 * My assumption is that Candyman Vending Service, Candyman Vending, and Draft:Andre Bramwell were all Nickaang creations. Obviously, the thanks refers to Candyman Vending Service, but I think it's at least a reasonable assumption that NickAang was hired to create the articles subsequent to the original effort. Candyman Vending Service and Candyman Vending are the word-for-word identical text with the only difference being a few additional references in the newer article.
 * I agree that NickAang is the "master" account of MehulWB. (It's a difference without distinction - NickAang=MehulWB, regardless of which SPI thread the requests are kept in.)  I tend to assume, though I don't know, that this farm is multiple different human beings who all work for NickAang's company.  This is purely my assumption - I have no idea and have made no effort to compare edit times to see if multiple NickAang/MehulWB accounts have ever edited at the same time.
 * It's difficult to prove who is who from editing characteristics along who is who because there are so blessed many people now creating COI articles on companies of borderline notability. The Nickaang ones are probably the "best" (in terms of quality) ones that I see.  The characteristics I notice of the accounts are (1) they NEVER have redlinked users - they always make some edit early in their history to their user page because they know that redlinked users tend to be subjected to more heightened scrutiny in patrolling recent changes.  (2) They usually have a handful of edits that have nothing whatsoever to do with the non-notable businesses that he is writing articles for, presumably because if someone looks at the edits, they will look like a normal account and be less likely to get the article deleted as spam.  (3) They frequently (though not always) start the article as a redirect or a draft because that exempts it from new page patrol when they actually come back to create the article.  (4) The articles always have hoards of references.  The references are properly formatted and look "real" for all the world, though if you examine them, most of them will be trivial or will be citing some general fact having nothing to do with the business at hand.  But when you are driving by and see 10 refs at the bottom, you're much less likely to delete it.
 * I actually contend, for example, that is also a part of this group - and Bemanna has existed since 2010, which would actually predate NickAang.  (Again, though, I don't know that it matters which account is designated the "master".)  I can't prove it, but if you look at the articles Bemanna created - Azoteq, Blue Fountain Media, Gabriel Shaoolian, Schlesinger Associates, Vanguard Properties, Wyndham Capital Mortgage, Webydo, EduKart, Web Start Today - this is obviously somebody's paid editing account.  Can I prove it's Nickaang's paid editing account?  Not really, no.  --B (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I added as another not stale one to check.  This user created the deleted Andre bramwell (head of Candyman vending) a year ago and left a (meaningless) message on my talk page today, so this account is not stale. --B (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

. I must say I'm fairly confused as to what your goal is here. On the one hand, you seem to want to establish Nick as the master rather than MehulWB, but on the other hand, you don't seem to care who the master is as long as we block those accounts that are being disruptive. That said, I'm willing to endorse a limited CU that will also have limited impact on the ultimate issue (MehulWB vs. Nick). The accounts to be checked would be Bosedekio, which was CU-blocked to MehulWB; Bemanna, which is not stale but has never been blocked; and Spdydre, which has made very few edits but has made one non-stale edit (btw, sometimes one edit isn't enough for a checkuser to reach a conclusion). The CU's findings, assuming they accept the endorsement, may or may not connect any of this to Nick. In theory, they should all be connected to MehulWB. If they are, it still begs the question of whether MehulWB = Nick. However, it would add some credence to your suspicions given that you believe they are connected to Nick's activities. If, on the other hand, there is a mixed result, it tends to reduce the weight of your suspicions. Finally, if you think there's the possibility of multiple individuals (not accounts) helping Nick, the CU will be worthless as it doesn't catch meat puppets unless there's a reason why they would all be editing from the same geographic location.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * is ✅ as MehulWB.
 * is (I think you read their last edit as Feb 2015 instead of Feb 2014...).
 * is ❌ to any other account.
 * Nothing to indicate that any of these three is related to NickAang, leastways not directly. Sorry - doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know, I'm afraid. Yunshui 雲 水 14:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , Okay, thanks for looking into it. I think my original request was somewhat obviated anyway since, subsequent to me making the original request, Bosedekio was blocked as a MehulWB sock.  And since all of the CU-proven Nickaang socks were blocked so long ago, I realize that Checkuser is probably not going to be able to make the link there.  Thanks again. --B (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the CU (despite my mistake) did tell us one thing. Spdydre is unrelated to anyone. I'm not persuaded, despite 's valiant efforts, that any action is justified here. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

23 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Nickaang runs a paid editing site which can verified here  and uses multiple accounts this job was earlier done by  User:Rerip a currently  blocked sockpuppet.User:Rerip created an article David Gaz now Katiebade has recreated it as  Laurence David Gaz   .Please refer to this User:Doc James/SPI and has knowledge of the previous edits done and per this  and it is recreated using the same sources and shows in good knowledge in going for a deletion review .On a side note it is being created violation of TOS.The user clearly fails WP:DUCK. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

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 is a tough case. Seems like a sock, but CU cannot help because all Nickaang accounts are stale. The only real edit made by Katiebade is to create Laurence David Gaz. So, it's also hard to connect him behaviorally to Nickaang. This discussion shows that Katiebade is probably a sock of Nickaang, but we can't be sure. I'd like to here some other opinions.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that Nickaang is one in the same with, who has a gracious plenty of non-stale accounts for comparison. --B (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we sure? I am not very familiar with that case, but I checked Sockpuppet investigations/MehulWB/Archive, and Nickaang is not even mentioned.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 110%. John E. Lincoln was created by checkuser-confirmed MehulWB sock .  If you go to, you will see johnelincoln is a regular Nickaang customer.   (another checkuser-confirmed MehulWB sock) created Ignite Visibility (John E. Lincoln's company) in July 2014.  Johnelincoln thanked Nick 7 months ago, which is Augustish, or, a few weeks after the article was created.  Checkuser-confirmed MehulWB sock  created Candyman Vending on February 21.  Candyman Vending is another Nickaang customer.  Hairline Illusions was initially created by Checkuser-confirmed Nickaang sock .  It was re-created a year and a half later by .  Though the blocking admin didn't specify who Ivankabel was a sock of, if you look at the blocking admin's logs for the time that he was blocked, he was blocking MehulWB socks.  Alia Janine was created in 2013 by Nickaang sock  and then re-created in 2014 by MehulWB sock .  So if they're not the same people, they sure share a lot of the same customers.  (I have always assumed that it's not actually just one person - it's a company.) --B (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, while preparing this, I noticed that MehulWB-authored Tom Gildred is a blue link again and I have added its creator to Sockpuppet investigations/MehulWB. --B (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the CU findings in the last case in this archive. You can also look at the case itself, but just enough for some context, because it's very long and complicated. Bear in mind that there's been no finding that MehulWB is a sock of Nick. Thus, if you use MehulWB non-stale socks for a CU and there's a hit, it should be tagged as a sock of MehulWB.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting, MehulWB looks nothing whatsoever like most of the (supposed) socks of MehulWB. I'm assuming that these accounts are probably from a part of the world that has a lot of shared IPs.   and, for example, are no doubt the same person (as confirmed by checkuser), but don't seem to have anything whatsoever to to with the articles-for-hire accounts.  The articles-for-hire accounts of MehulWB (the overwhelming majority of socks in that category) are clearly Nickaang.  --B (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - - To compare Katiebade with MehulWB, based on the above described link between Katiebade and Nickaang, and MehulWB and Nickaang.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  08:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . I'd say ❌, but having looked at MehulWB and this SPI it might be more meat than sock, or there is tremendous (near-inconcievable) travel, or there are some very strange VPNs being used. So, at face value ❌ (my intuition leads me to think this), but on the safe side, the results on MehulWB and this are so disparate, I find myself leaning towards the fact this is actually inconclusive. NativeForeigner Talk 23:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing as inconclusive.

07 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility


 * Obvious great similarity in username, admitted paid editor, and admitted having several accounts. 220  of  Borg 08:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - Already blocked by, . 220  of  Borg 08:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Already blocked. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

18 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This user created Richmond Practice, which is associated with Nickaang. Since this is the second potential sock that's popped up in the last few months, it might not be a bad idea to perform a sweep, which is the main reason I'm posting this. I've already blocked and tagged the user. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:37, 18 December 2015 (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

 * Seems reasonable to me considering the editors history with sock puppets. Mkdw talk 20:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Sleepers check needed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  01:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick check finds confirmed to be the same as Richmondpractice, but I think that's about it. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)