Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shahroz155/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Already CU-blocked, but I have a question and a remark. First, I think this is not a new editors, and perhaps I missed something in my CU check--too many windows and things going on--and the article in question, Nina Trentmann, has also been worked on by another editor, see Sockpuppet investigations/Wedgadsman. Second, I am wondering about the IPs and all that. I believe that the user Nina Trentmanm is in fact the real person, but the earliest edits came from elsewhere--from Shahroz155's part of the world--and perhaps they're sharing login info. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if someone could have another look: I am sure there are things I missed. (Oh, User:Irmgard Leiber is CU-confirmed with Trentmann, but I have no reason to be suspicious there yet.) Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2023 (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

 * for another check per Drmies' comments. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * . --Blablubbs (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with ' assessment that and  are most likely sharing login information; this goes both ways (i.e. the primary operator of the Shahroz account has access to the Trentmann account and vice versa) – this would imply coordination, as opposed to some sort of compromise scenario. The alternative explanations for the technical data (teleportation or extremely sophisticated proxy use) seem unlikely. I also concur about  (this account only appears to have been accessed by the primary operator of the Trentmann account), and I'm inclined to block. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Blablubbs, that point about the primary operator--I didn't look for that, I think, or just missed noticing from which of the IP ranges it came, but if that is so then yes, that account should be blocked, since it was then set up for the same process. Thanks. It's a bit sad, isn't it. I nominated the article for deletion since, on closer inspection, there was no proper sourcing there anyway. Hope I don't get burned on Twitter... Drmies (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, blocked. I'll leave them untagged. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)