Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shhhhwwww!!/Archive

16 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Isn't the sock master should also be blocked as well as he/she have been abusing the WP:Sock. Both of his/her sockpuppets has been block indefinitely. The proof can be seen here and here. Thank you. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I still feel there is something weird here, for example this edit clearly show that it was possibly been made by the same user (probably by using another computer) including a revert by him/her on my userpage as well on this by the first sock "Corporal Applegate". Both of the sock edits was also been made in a close period . Some few hours later Shhhhwwww!! restoring the message which I had been told to remove. This had make me felt very strong that there is some connection between them here. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 15:32, 16 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

 * . What gives you the idea that Shhhhwwww!! is related to the other two accounts? I have done a number of checks on accounts related to the two blocked users, and I have never seen Shhhhwwww!! in my results. Please note that this sockfarm is known for trolling behavior. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I'm pretty sure that they're not related, and it looks you're being misled by the socks' edits. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

14 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Probably all of them are related based on their activities of vandalism and contributing non-neutral edits on Sabah article as well re-creating hoax article such as North Borneo, Philippines (especially by HistoriaFilipinas and the latest by Shhhhwwww!! which can be seen on the deleted page history). ~ Muffin Wizard;) 01:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , : Ahh, I forget about that. Here some of the diffs: There is a "possibility" the users are related as based on the two contributions, Shhhhwwww is known as the supporter of the defunct Sultanate of Sulu based on one of his earliest contribution. Some of his contribution since 2013 are hidden with non-neutral elements which could be labelled as bias such as this, this and this while HistoriaFilipinas also inserting bias/hoax content about the Sultanate of Sulu to Sabah article as been seen from his contribution of this, this, this, this and this. Both are known to be re-creating the North Borneo, Philippines article even it has been deleted as hoax. Also several other IPs could be involved too based on their similar motive. I request there should be a checkuser on every of them if they are connected to other accounts or IPs. Thank you. ~ Muffin Wizard;) 12:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * . "Probably a related user" with absolutely zero diffs/evidence cannot justify a CU. Doc   talk  08:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "CheckUsers are discouraged from making a public statement that connects one or more IP addresses to one or more named accounts". If there's a named account that can be tied to HistoriaFilipinas, that's very important. A CU will not be performed between a named account and a list of IPs. The report is still perfectly valid and open, but the CU request will be declined. Doc   talk  09:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm already said that HistoriaFilipinas possibly connected with Shhhhwwww as both have shown a similar motive when editing articles related to the Sultanate of Sulu as I have stated on the diff above. Perhaps they may use a different computer with different IPs to avoid detection. ~ Muffin Wizard;) 09:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The CheckUser request portion of this sockpuppet report is going to be declined. This does not mean that the report is invalid or closed. Look for more behavioral evidence of a connection between the accounts, and present that evidence in the form of diffs. Good luck! Doc   talk  09:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know this report would not be closed or mean invalid but ugh *sigh*, hard to make you understand what I'm actually mean, nevermind then. I'm going to ask another admin opinion on this. did you see any possibility of a connection between Shhhhwwww!! and HistoriaFilipinas based on the diff I provide above? Thanks! ~ Muffin Wizard;) 10:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  09:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - to compare HistoriaFilipinas with Shhhhwwww!! based on the evidence presented by Muffin Wizard.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The two accounts are ❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The IPs are stale. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)