Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thabo Daniels/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Per WP:DUCK. Wolv Gxng is writing the same promotional biography (Draft:Bmcabana SF) and only started editing after Thabo Daniels was blocked by. GPL93 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 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

 * Their bio, Draft:Bmcabana SF, lifts & doctors sources from Chad (rapper) & iFani. Clearly they're of no benefit to the wiki. Thabo can make a case (if one exists) at appeal. Cabayi (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Per WP:DUCK, recreated the same draft as the other two accounts at Draft:Bmcabana SF GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 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

 * In addition to the duckiness described above, there's also a distinct writing style exhibited in the edit comments which eliminates all doubt. Also G5'd Draft:Bmcabana SF -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Obvious sock recreating Draft:Bmcabana SF for the N-th time, opening just for the archives. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 10 July 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

 * -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Recently created the Bmcabana SF article with the edit summary of "moved" right after they achieved the autoconfirmed status. I am asking for Checkuser for this one to potentially look for any sleepers as this has a history of long term abuse and looking through the contrib histories of the other puppets I can't find any other pages that this may have been copied from. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here we have an admittance of sockpuppetry that we have more socks as this puppet is editing one of the forged signature edits by an IP. I feel the AFD at Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF may be starting to stink of a drawer full of socks. Within 4 hours we had 4 different IPs vote while forging editors' signatures all using the exact same edit summaries. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Since we are expanding this I will provide some more precise evidence;
 * - Forging Signature
 * - Forging Signature
 * - Forging Signature
 * - New SPA account also manually entering signature much like every other user listed here

Standard signatures use the UTC timecode not specific timezones as far as know there is no way to change that in settings. I find it hard that so many users would manually enter their signatures in one place, and especially hard that established users would forge their signature as an IP and not use proper format. I am starting to believe that this may be a new sock case and not related to the listed master as at least the original master knew how to sign their posts. I will leave that up to the clerks and CU to make the final decision. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - After the last account was flagged as a SPA this was created and made several minor edits made to avoid the tag in the AFD. Changed the manual to signature to UTC after I mentioned it here. . McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Users comment


 * I have been on Wikipedia for days reading the policies and working within rules, I have helped edit suggested articles and provided an addition to me as a new user, articles namely Ayanda Jiya, Chad, Kwesta and others, the articles continue to do just fine with the number of respective page viewers increasing, I'm not on Wikipedia for malicious purposes, but to make Wikipedia better in relation to neutrality. (11:20 PM 27 July 2021(CAT)


 * I had also asked help and guidance from my mentor to at least explain to me about adding information and citing sources, my experience is still underway, I pledge that I have no connection with the accused of Sockpuppetry. I'm an independent Wikipedia editor not in favor of any party. Yes if an Article is not suitable for Wikipedia and does not meet the criteria for notability should be Deleted without delay.  (11:31 PM 27 July 2021) (CAT)


 * Zefu showed up on my talk page a few days ago, asking for Draft:Bmcabana SF to be unsalted (I worked this case previously). The mainspace page they created is largely a duplicate of the deleted draft.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I requested on your talk page because the page was protected to only be created by extended users, I checked and tried to create the page and the protection was no more I thought the matter was resolved about the page, then I started to work on the page as shown (11:42 PM 27 July 2021) (CAT)


 * Again, I saw the warnings about duplicate and I was warned to only create the page only if i will add different contents from the ones deleted, which of course i took into consideration, I went through and created a new article since I had nothing to do with previously blocked users who tried to work on the page before me. (11:48 PM 27 July 2021) (CAT)

(02:20 PM 28 July 2021) (CAT)
 * I have wworked so hard to be an editor, Im still not too experience, but i contruct good article and work on researches to make sure i find link that support the articles i create. But i also feel that because im a new editor and im doing ver well, they put me under pressure for compliance thus im being put under ivestigations for sockpuppetry. I hope to continue editing and contributing to wikipedia because it makes me feel that im serving purpose to the world of readers.


 * This is absolutely unfair treatment now I'm receiving emails from unknown individuals who tell me, they saw the article I created was nominated for AFD, they claimed they will close the discussion and that they are administrators. They insisted that my article will be restored after deletion, only if I paid $500. But thanks to the scam alert Wikipedia warned us about. I didn't entertain such scammers, because I don't want to pay anyone for the articles I create to be on Wikipedia, I only want my articles to be on Wikipedia only if they meet guideline policies. I urge others to avoid requesting AFD and then run to emails of editors to propose courtesy for closing discussions. Lets all practice Good faith when editing (04:06 PM 29 July 2021) (CAT)
 * Please see WP:SCAM. If you are receiving these types of solicitations, you should contact paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * im just glad that the Check User was endorsed, to many investigation are being concluded by only one user, who make claims that statements and comments made by other users, are admission of guilt, yes they are isues brought fourth but we have to wait and hear from the Clerks to tell us what are their findings. We can all count on that. Taking a case up, with just one side of the story has never made it possible to reach a verdict, The investigations will provid the results needed to determine whether the accounts listed are linked to a sockpuppet investigation that was opened. Making accusations without being able to point out the linkages between account is not an option, already the IPs listed above are different, then how are we going to prove sockpuppet?... This is just another editorial warring that has gone too far. (02:06 PM 03 August 2021) (CAT)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - (Not a clerk, but) I've taken a look at the related AfD as a message was left on my talk page regarding it. There is definitely something going on from the checks I've already done, but I'd welcome another CU to look at this. - TheresNoTime 😺 16:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi TheresNoTime, note the new AfD at Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF (2nd nomination) due to the previous one being too badly disrupted. If there could be an outcome for this SPI sooner than later, given the context of that, it would be fantastic :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I ended up here because I was already checking Zefu zungu based on Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF (2nd nomination). The following accounts are ✅ to each other, and are :
 * This user has also attempted but failed to log in as:
 * It should not be concluded that these accounts (where they exist) actually belong to the same user, this could just as well be a not very sophisticated attempt at accessing compromised idle accounts. They also failed to log in as Zefu zungu and Ponnerro multiple times. However, in my opinion these attempts suggest a very old undisclosed commercial editing operation.
 * The following are, though they are located in the same country:
 * No comment on the IPs. I will leave to a clerk how to proceed with these two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This user has also attempted but failed to log in as:
 * It should not be concluded that these accounts (where they exist) actually belong to the same user, this could just as well be a not very sophisticated attempt at accessing compromised idle accounts. They also failed to log in as Zefu zungu and Ponnerro multiple times. However, in my opinion these attempts suggest a very old undisclosed commercial editing operation.
 * The following are, though they are located in the same country:
 * No comment on the IPs. I will leave to a clerk how to proceed with these two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It should not be concluded that these accounts (where they exist) actually belong to the same user, this could just as well be a not very sophisticated attempt at accessing compromised idle accounts. They also failed to log in as Zefu zungu and Ponnerro multiple times. However, in my opinion these attempts suggest a very old undisclosed commercial editing operation.
 * The following are, though they are located in the same country:
 * No comment on the IPs. I will leave to a clerk how to proceed with these two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs. I will leave to a clerk how to proceed with these two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs. I will leave to a clerk how to proceed with these two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No comment on the IPs. I will leave to a clerk how to proceed with these two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked KagGSwat as suspected (likely canvassed). Not convinced by TapticInfo - their edit history suggests an interest in the South Africa topic area, so I don't see clear evidence for a block. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

More quacking recreations at Draft:B m c a b a n a SF then moved to Draft:Bmcaban SF with the same material, developing it further. Both were submitted despite the original draft space being salted from an AFD. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 05:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

After those drafts were deleted, user created Draft:Bernard Ralehlaka. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:03, 17 August 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

 * - Fairly ducky. They love creating a lot of accounts at once though, recommend a check.  qedk  ( t  愛  c ) 10:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirmed to sock(s) in the archives. No comment on the IP, and . -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)