Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaquezedrayton/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Shaquezedrayton and Yungqueezy20 are already confirmed to each other by checkuser User:Drmies. Drmies also blocked the /48 range from Hinesville, Georgia, Special:Contributions/2601:901:4400:0:0:0:0:0/48. Previously, User:Only blocked the /64 range Special:Contributions/2601:901:4400:8D00:0:0:0:0/64, which is inside the larger /48 range. All of the accounts and IPs are making disruptive edits with the edit summary "(good)", tying them all together. No checkuser needed as this is a pro forma filing, to get the disruption on the record. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 11 September 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
Everything that needed blocking has been blocked. Marking for close as this was pro-forma anyway! ~ mazca  talk 19:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless someone wants to tag the two accounts as CU-confirmed. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, already did so shortly after filing the report. Both userpages have templates suggesting they're CU-confirmed. ~  mazca  talk 21:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * --OK, then I missed something, haha. File away. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Shameless self-promotion here, but what you want to do is install User:RoySmith/tag-check.js. It'll annotate a SPI page with adorable little icons showing which users have been tagged. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I found this IP range while looking at contributions from my local /32 range. Turns out this is block evasion, using a very large range, but this is the minimum range I calculated for them. In terms of finding this out: All of their edit summaries are "good", exactly the same as the user. (FYI, if you block a larger range for them, like the /32, I might not be able to edit and there will be collateral.) wizzito  &#124; say hello!  20:29, 31 October 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

 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

wizzito &#124;  say hello!  01:53, 21 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

 * This ISP's /64 are pretty static, so I blocked the most recent one for a bit; I'm not blocking yet since that might incur creation collateral and narrower blocks should work, though we can revisit that if disruption resumes.  Please include at least some evidence in your filings, even when you think that something is obvious; it is not the SPI team's responsibility to look for evidence on your behalf. Closing.  --Blablubbs (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)