Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum/Archive

29 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Obvious vandalism to pages related to previous socks.  General Ization  Talk   00:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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


 * Not found by CU below, and  are both clearly socks of the same person, though given the usernames I doubt either of them are actually their first account. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also not listed below, is clearly also a sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and ❌ to Alexiulian25:
 * All of the accounts are already blocked. A clerk should create a new SPI with whichever account is the oldest.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All tagged. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the accounts are already blocked. A clerk should create a new SPI with whichever account is the oldest.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All tagged. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the accounts are already blocked. A clerk should create a new SPI with whichever account is the oldest.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All tagged. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

03 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) 20:40, 3 March 2016 (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 upside-down. It should really be a new case under Sockpuppet investigations/Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, with the new sock

I have blocked the perp; please merge. Favonian (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure how the filer found a no-edit account, but I blocked it anyway. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

03 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Name patterning. DUCK. Given the burst of account creation, asking for sleeper check. (Will be adding more names momentarily. )  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:07, 3 March 2016 (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

 * Yet another no-edit account, blocked, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

13 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The first one Winterystepe is a troll account to attack me. he recreated my userpage. Immediately, he had posted block warnings on multiple users' talk pages. I left a friendly note to everyone affected to those affected. Minutes later, the 2nd sock was created and did the exact same thing on several users, exactly by going through my contributions list. You know what was also nuts? I had went to 's page to get the syntax for "no ping", and i made a mistake in clicking on OneClickArchive so i reverted my edit, and apologized for it. The 2nd account took the warning written from the first and put on the same people that the 1st one had vandalized. Both the first account and the second account removed massive content from user talk pages.

EDIT: This is my major edit and addition. I added User:Oshwash to the list because this user did the same thing] by attempting to imitate. This user literally has identical MO by adding the same block messages (CSD tags) to different people, not the same people he did to me though. Despite the different name and affected people, it is the same message of CSD block tags by different accounts that are similar to the actual people, only off by one letter. Therefore, i suspect its the same person.

EDIT 2. Im adding the imposter of Adam9007 because his actions are virtually the same, although the message content is different. The MO is imitate a person by being 1 character off and spamming the talk pages of alot of people.

EDIT 3: Another added by. It is on a similar vein, having only numbers different, but a very similar MO. Winterysteppe (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Psst... Take a look at, who was impersonating . It seems similar. GABHello! 13:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added Winterysteppe (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See also User:Number 56. Actions also seem similar. Impersonated Number 57. I also suspect sock puppetry of another user. Is it the same person? Adam9007 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm, the content is a little iffy. Not sure if the contributions will hold up here though. Winterysteppe (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added mine, . Thanks for notifying me on Oshwah's TP of this. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't visible in CN666's contribs, but they did make an attack page on the admin Smalljim, which has been deleted. I won't disclose the name of the article as attack pages are meant to be blanked as a courtesy and I don't want to give this sockmaster any more undue attention - after all, that's what they are after. Never mind, it's visible on their talk page. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, yes i was hoping a CU come in to check if the IP addresses are the same person. and possibly put a hard block on the person if it is the same person. Winterysteppe (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please do us a huge favor and merge this into the Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum SPI, as per the CU results below? Thanks so much. GABHello! 01:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Unless there's something I'm missing here, they all appear blocked and so no CheckUser is needed. Do you have any objections to closing the case, or a reason to do a CU? (If so, please feel free to rerequest CU.) Thanks for filing. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - Sleepers check needed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All the sock accounts have already been blocked. They're a bunch of throwaway accounts, so I won't list them all. FWIW, User:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and Co. are confirmed to this group. Uunfortunately these sorts of users have a habit of creating a number of socks. A sleeper check is always helpful. Mike V • Talk 00:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

17 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) 16:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Could we please move this to the "Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum" SPI? Thanks. GABHello! 16:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Mike V • Talk 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mike V • Talk 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mike V • Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

17 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) 17:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If it quacks. Nthep (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Another blocked account. SA 13 Bro (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Propose this whole case be moved to as the master... the behavior is similar. Also, username similarities to another sock . GABHello! 18:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, someone has way too much time on their hands... GABHello! 21:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

18 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Impersonating Andy M. Wang; the previous socks also impersonate other users, vandalize in the same way, and give out barnstars. CU for sleepers, given the massive ring that was netted last time (31 confirmed!) and there are almost certainly more. It would also be nice to see if a range-block is feasible. GABHello! 23:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added two more impersonators. GABHello! 23:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And another one. GABHello! 23:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * More are popping up every minute. Pinging and, who have experience on this case. GABHello! 23:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

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

The following were listed by at ANI (already blocked, but listing here for the record):

 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Reino Unido Unión Europea membresía Referéndum Jueves, 23 de junio 2016
 * Special:Contributions/Royaume-Uni Union européenne adhésion de référendum jeudi, 23 Juin 2016
 * Special:Contributions/Regno Unito dell'Unione europea appartenenza Referendum Giovedi, 23 giugno il 2016
 * Special:Contributions/Europäische Union Großbritannien Referendum Donnerstag 23. Juni Jahr 2016
 * Special:Contributions/英國歐盟公投週四，2016年6月23日
 * Special:Contributions/Reino Unido União Europeia Membership Referendum quinta-feira, junho 23, 2016


 * I'm unsure about User:ThisisGilliam. May be a different upset user. &mdash; Andy W. (talk · contrib) 01:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks unrelated to me, there's no spamming like "Opinion polling" usually does. GABHello! 01:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User is a prolific socker. A sleeper check would be appreciated I think.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It looks like everyone has been blocked. Is there any real need for a CU here?  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, on the basis of 's concern about possible sleepers.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's almost no question about the validity of the listings above, except ThisisGilliam. Before Richwales posted a followup above, I would have been okay with posting add'l entries here as we find them (as a resource page), but by all means, please proceed. Thanks &mdash; Andy W. (talk · contrib) 05:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A "sleeper check" does not question the validity of existing listings or preclude more listings. A sleeper check is a way for Checkusers to look for evidence of additional sockpuppet accounts that may have been set up some time ago and kept in reserve (as "sleepers") until being put into use at some future date.  If a sockmaster has a long history of misbehaviour, it is often helpful for someone with CU rights to search for possible sleeper accounts. , if you or anyone else might know of other suspicious accounts to list here, by all means go ahead and do so; this would be in addition to (not instead of) anything that might turn up in a sleeper check.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * All accounts seem to have been blocked. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

19 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

A sleeper account? Username seems to fit. Not 100% sure &mdash; Andy W. (talk · contrib) 15:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Looks pretty likely to me. Sockpuppeteer has three styles of usernames: nonsense about European Union Referendums; attempts at impersonating users; and&mdash;the style relevant to this possible sleeper&mdash;copied-and-pasted parts of text on wikipedia, sometimes repeated (see, for example,, , , and ). While not proof, he's been creating a lot of accounts like that the past few days, so probably worth looking into. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't definitively say. It might show up once we check for sleepers... GABHello! 19:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is probably him. GABHello! 20:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Different than the previous batch, yes. Not so different from the second batch of sleepers caught on April 17, though. If anything, previous batch is more likely to be the impersonation. (Except several of the impersonation accounts from that batch show great likeness to the batch of 13 April, as well as the sleepers found in the first April 17 batch, the aforementioned 2nd April 17 batch, etc. The other accounts appear to be Google-translations of strings they've used before. Perhaps the declined-undeclined-approved-closed (not ran, seemingly) CU check should be ran to see if that shows anything of use? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait...-scratches head- or did you mean that from a technical CU PoV, they look different? If so, ignore the rambling above, please. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. I've known Referendum to impersonate folks, including other sockers (several accounts from an earlier batch appear at first glance to be Nsmutte socks). If they've now been impersonated, that's going to muddy the waters a fair bit, I fear. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Found another at newusers. . Being a bit suspicious, but this could be a sleeper. &mdash; Andy W. (talk · contrib) 00:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Technically speaking, these accounts seem different than the previous batch. Perhaps we have an imitator? <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, just to be clear I was referring to the CU evidence of the accounts. There's a plausible explanation as to why it's different, but we can't know for sure. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

23 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Similarly to previous socks (e.g. Oshwash), Linguist1111 impersonates another user (in this case, and warns users ( vs ). Requesting CU for technical confirmation since imitator accounts have been suggested in archives; Linguist1111 is already blocked. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * See also (also currently blocked), with the same tendency of spamming user talkpages (albeit in this case with wikilove templates, but iirc at least one Referendum-sock did so before), the same old tendency of abusing talkpage access post-block by means of copy-pasting so ridiculously much onto it that the page starts lagging when you load it, a large number of the same old targets of Referendum-socks (mostly admins that have blocked their socks before and vandal-fighters that have reverted them before) and confirmed to the suspected Referendum-sock Linguist1111 per this ANI discussion. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * based on my presented evidence. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * I see no point in tagging them. These are just the accounts that were blocked yesterday. When I dug deeper yesterday before blocking BenLrove, I found many other untagged, blocked socks. When I dug deeper today, the same. I'm not listing them, partly per WP:DENY. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no point in tagging them. These are just the accounts that were blocked yesterday. When I dug deeper yesterday before blocking BenLrove, I found many other untagged, blocked socks. When I dug deeper today, the same. I'm not listing them, partly per WP:DENY. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no point in tagging them. These are just the accounts that were blocked yesterday. When I dug deeper yesterday before blocking BenLrove, I found many other untagged, blocked socks. When I dug deeper today, the same. I'm not listing them, partly per WP:DENY. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no point in tagging them. These are just the accounts that were blocked yesterday. When I dug deeper yesterday before blocking BenLrove, I found many other untagged, blocked socks. When I dug deeper today, the same. I'm not listing them, partly per WP:DENY. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

24 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Similar edits. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:59, 24 April 2016 (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

 * Pro forma report. Already blocked, close. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

26 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Rather obvious sock given the user name and puppeteer's M.O. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I combined the reports that made into this one single report, so not to create multiple requests. All of the users have been bagged and tagged it appears. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See also . GABHello! 18:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Already blocked. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

26 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) 19:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

29 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Made this edit to User:David Biddulph. Saying he's a sock of User:Smalljim. Seems like the same behavior from the other socks. – Qpalzmmzlapq T C 23:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Fifth one listed is obviously sockmaster's username in a foreign language. – Qpalzmmzlapq T C 23:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Blocked now -- I've seen lots of these guys lately. GABHello! 23:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added one as per obvious. GABHello! 23:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And another. GABHello! 23:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Another one. Impersonating User:GeneralizationsAreBad. – Qpalzmmzlapq T C 23:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm loving the attention. Are these guys using any blockable range? Also: is there any way we could yank TPA, since they're still spamming stuff (impersonation, vandalism, etc.)? Thanks. GABHello! 23:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

09 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) 11:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

I certainly won't chastise you, because I probably haven't followed the process correctly. But in fact the two accounts below were set up by me as WP:Alternative accounts, for testing how articles appear to different classes of non-admin user. Is there a particular place on my own pages that I should declare that? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Golly! I hasten to unblock. The safe thing to do would have been to create the two user pages using your primary account and then list them on that account's user page. There are templates for this, but I don't remember where. Favonian (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for the advice. I've updated the two userpages from my main account and also mentioned them on my own user page. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked Amakuru-Confirmed as well as Amakuru-NotConfirmed (added above). The real will surely chastise me if I blundered. Favonian (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Closed per Amakuru's note above. Favonian (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Usual stuff like vandalism and adding Template:Ek to my userspace pages. WP:DUCK. — MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 23:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppets



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

CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) 18:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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