Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaqwewew/Archive

Evidence submitted by Jbarta
User:Qaqwewew caught my attention because he has the annoying habit of removing material,   and even after being requested not to, he simply removes the request and ignores it. This pattern of removal, besides being annoying, also seemed suspicious. So I started investigating. Long story short, due to similar editing/behavioral style and articles edited, I strongly suspect User:Qaqwewew, User:Asdfdsds and User:JKHGFDS are the same person (and there are probably more). JBarta (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * . Probably more to come. Cs32en   Talk to me  01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * may be related. Cs32en   Talk to me  03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional accounts


 * Most likely stale

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention as we may well have a sockfarm on our hands. –MuZemike 02:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the following accounts as being the same editor;




 * - the following;




 * There aren't any other accounts at this time, though if things get worse, there's a likely rangeblock here - A l is o n  ❤ 06:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * - you can stop adding the accounts now. We're done here, at least as far as checking goes - sorry! -  A l is o n  ❤ 06:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All the accounts added after the check are, any socks that are not stale will have been revealed by the check, so there's little point adding anymore as far as checkuser goes. The same goes for the IP, which will also have been revealed by the check, and will be blocked if it is feasible to do so. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 07:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, User:Qaqwewew for one month. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 14:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Fallschirmjäger
User:Tyughjbn has been requesting improvements to images over at WP:Graphics Lab, specifically images relating to Canadians. The requests are worded in the exact same way as User:Qaqwewew has previously done. Seems too much of a coincidence to me. I suspect User:Tyughjbn is a new account created becuase of the previous block on 4 March, considering it was created on 14 March 2010. See here and here to compare how similar the requests are between the users. Cheers,  Fallschirmjäger  02:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Sock blocked and tagged, sockmaster's block is reset for block evasion. –MuZemike 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Fallschirmjäger
User Ujmikl seems to be another puppet of Qaqwewew with yet another attempt at evading their original block which is not due to expire until 19 April 2010. This proposed sock follows the pattern as Qaqwewew's previous socks, all of which seem to have a pattern of characters for each username. It seems he has again returned to WP:GL/P with Canadian politican related requests, in the exact same way as he has previously done, seems to much of a coincidence to me.  Fallschirmjäger 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Ujmikl indefinitely blocked and tagged. Qaqwewew's block is now indefinite. –MuZemike 15:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Fallschirmjäger
This has to be Qaqwewew evading their indefinite block which was issued on the 12 April 2010. It seems highly unlikely that a new user account, only created on 2 August would know about WP:GL. Their edits have only been concentrated there, which relate to Canadian politicians in the same fashion as Qaqwewew has done in the past. The user's behaviour seems too alike for this to be a coincidence. Even the username follows the pattern of previous confirmed socks, a mismash of a few characters for example Qaqwewew, Zxcvxxcxcx which is what originally alerted me of their return. This suspected sock is obvious, they haven't even tried to disguise their presence by choosing a easily identifiable username and behaving in the same way.

While the edits of this new user aren't disruptive, they may still be evading their block and there is the likely risk of them reverting to their previous disruptive behaviour and annoying habits, see the previous archived cases above for examples of this.  Fallschirmjäger  &#9993; 10:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
as and co. are, Wwuww's link will need to be decided based on behavioural evidence, regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged per behavioral evidence and editing patterns. –MuZemike 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)