Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waldemar15/Archive

26 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Enemyusuar has been here for a while, with an interest in Mexico, Mexican wrestling, and Mole (including Mole (sauce), which they moved to Mole (marinated)). The other account is recent (23 July), and shows the same interests. Specifically, both have been editing Lucha Libre, a Mexican wrestler's article; the most damning evidence, however, derives from Mole (sauce): Enemyusuar moved it unilaterally and ungrammatically to Mole (marinated) in this edit; the day before, Yaleokine had made a similar strange and ungrammatical edit here on the dab page for Mole, changing "(sauce)" to "(marinated)". In addition, both have been editing Místico, making the same edit: Enemyusuar and Yaleokine (reverting my edit). Also, for a while I thought that might be part of the family (considering this edit, reverted by me, and restored by Enemyusuar a half an hour later, but right now I think that was just Enemyusuar paying me back (as they did here). At any rate, I'd appreciate CU to check into Enemyusuar and Yaleokine; perhaps the CU or the clerk are inclined to include Rsuodiongan (who has unrelated Philippine interests and is indef-blocked as a VOA) as well.  is the blocking admin who put Enemyusuar out of commission for a week for general jerkiness, and Rsuodiongan indefinitely. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2013 (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

 * - Thank you for the well put-together evidence. It's quite compelling, and more than adequate for me to endorse checkuser. NativeForeigner Talk 19:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, if you hit Rsuodiongan please disclose it but I wouldn't necessarily go out of the way. He looks like an isolated case of disruption. NativeForeigner Talk 22:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * and are ✅, however please refrain from any action yet as there may be additional socks and a different master account. I have asked another CU to double check my findings. Note that  is ❌.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As noted above and  are ✅ as the same user. The accounts however are part of a larger sock farm that  includes:
 * with (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * with (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As the other CU to review the case, I concur with these findings. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all the related accounts indefinitely with the exception of Waldemar 15, who I've blocked for a month (using so many accounts, many of which were used disruptively) NativeForeigner Talk 16:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

22 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Also block evasion since Scalkanes was blocked for another 18 hours from the time this edit was made Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Three more unconstructive edits just now. Could we block this account now please? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2013 (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

 * I thought that this seemed familiar... The following are all ✅ sockpuppets of Waldemar15:
 * Even though this is a clear case of sockpuppetry, after seeing the history of Chivas USA, I must caution the reporting party against further edit warring. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If edit warring is a concern, please lock the article to new users. I'm not sure how to deal this editor's incorrect and unexplained additions without reverting them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though this is a clear case of sockpuppetry, after seeing the history of Chivas USA, I must caution the reporting party against further edit warring. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If edit warring is a concern, please lock the article to new users. I'm not sure how to deal this editor's incorrect and unexplained additions without reverting them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though this is a clear case of sockpuppetry, after seeing the history of Chivas USA, I must caution the reporting party against further edit warring. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If edit warring is a concern, please lock the article to new users. I'm not sure how to deal this editor's incorrect and unexplained additions without reverting them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If edit warring is a concern, please lock the article to new users. I'm not sure how to deal this editor's incorrect and unexplained additions without reverting them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Extending all to indef. Rschen7754 03:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

24 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucha_libre&diff=569938266&oldid=569795239 was also made by known socks of Waldemar15 and the time-line is right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2013 (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

 * Blocked as a duck. --Rschen7754 02:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

04 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucha_libre&diff=571557833&oldid=571187272 and WP:QUACK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Compare with recent sockpuppets: Kairksouky, Kleekejia and Scalkanes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2013 (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

 * Blocked as a duck. Favonian (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ but nothing else. Closing. NativeForeigner Talk 21:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

05 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I noticed that this user reported Walter Görlitz for reverting edits by a sockpuppet. This makes me think that this is another sockpuppet of Waldemar15 due to how his/her sockpuppets have focused on that article. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2013 (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

 * ho-hum, another one blocked. Favonian (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Favonian has blocked and tagged. Nothing more to do. Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

05 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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


 * Quack with quack, and the most important quack. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  00:13, 6 September 2013 (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

 * blocked, hat-trick. Favonian (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing, since the sock has already been blocked by Favonian. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and ran a check because we've been playing whackamole for a long time.
 * is ✅, as is Welshcurly. NativeForeigner Talk 22:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked and closing. Rschen7754 22:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

12 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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


 * I was notified that Oateskash undid this reversion of an undid of a confirmed sock of Walder. It would be really strange that a "new" account a) knew how to revert, b) that particular revert, and c) to edit articles Walder tends to edit (Mexico-related) like National Autonomous University of Mexico, Soriana or Tuxtla Gutiérrez, this last protected due to this. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  00:16, 13 September 2013 (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

 * is a ✅ sock with as a possible sleeper that bears watching. Note that there are now a couple of significant rangeblocks in place; hopefully this will help limit the disruption.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now the account Has reverted me at Template:National Autonomous University of Mexico. He reveals himself easily.  Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  05:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * has now been blocked as well, and the template protected by Materialscientist.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 05:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * is the sleeper Confirmed or Possible? --Rschen7754 06:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They are a match technically, but with no edits I don't feel comfortable calling a confirmed sleeper. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  06:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not blocking the possible sleeper. Closing. Rschen7754 06:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

9 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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


 * I was notified that Veinkeyek undid this reversion of an undid of a confirmed sock of Walder. It is just the same person as the last time I reported him. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  23:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, per the user page content, the block of worked.  Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  23:37, 9 October 2013 (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

 * Combining the technical and behavioural data I'm calling this as ✅.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Veinkeyek tagged and blocked indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

15 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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


 * I was notified that Atrarauks undid reversions of other undids of a confirmed sock of Walder. It is just the same case as, the last report. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  04:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I just reverted the sock's edits, and realized, if the editor is intent on adding content, why not just add it? I then restored a cleaned version of the material. I trust that the protracted edit war will now have no reason to continue on those two articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the user's edits are so tricky that he only edits to autoconform his accounts. I don't know if he knows that WP:VE exists and his reverts of my reverts will be notified to me, but Waldemar has proved no intentions to improve the project, but to damage it, through WP:DE and through multiple copyvios here and in Commons. If he wants to "add content", he must do so with his original account. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  00:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * These accounts are to ✅ as Waldemar15:


 * Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Accounts blocked by Master of Puppets. Closed for now. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 22:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

5 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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


 * I was notified that Esterlis undid a reversion of an edit that Walder did with another account. This particular edit is too obscure, so how a newbie could know about it? Anyway, fails the duck test at his own talk page  v. . A CU may be needed as Walder creates many accounts at the same time.  ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 23:40, 5 November 2013 (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

 * is a ✅ match along with and .--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  23:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Master already blocked, all socks tagged and blocked indef. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

07 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

is the same as confirmed socks and Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2013 (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

 * He's editing via an open proxy (now blocked); I've blocked and tagged the account as an obvious sock.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

03 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Fails WP:DUCK. Compare autoconfirmation through talk page and the insertation of File:Ciudad de México Distrito Federal.jpg as a Walder sock. CU may be required as Walder creates multiple accounts at the same time and has been a few weeks since last CU was performed. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 09:38, 3 December 2013 (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
is ✅ along with: There's a pretty substantial rangeblock now in place, hopefully this will help limit account creation.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All confirmed socks tagged and blocked indef. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

14 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Editor's edits at are the same as several known socks, most notably. WP:QUACK Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Fails awfully WP:DUCK. Nothing but reverts of my reverts of Walder socks, etc. CU may be needed as Walder creates many accounts at the same time (see last time) ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 05:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Blocked and tagged, but given the sock farm which was found last time could a CU take a look, plus maybe block the IP/s? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No socks found this time. There is a rather significant rangeblock in place that seems to be helping in limiting mass account creation/disruption.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

17 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I've already blocked and tagged. Style is the same. The amount of crossover is too much to be a coincidence. The sock was created the same day that the master received a one week block (3rd time for edit warring). The master was already indef blocked by me earlier in the week, 4th time edit warring. Reporting to create file and close, or review at your leisure. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  01:25, 17 May 2014 (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

 * I don't see anything else that needs doing. Marking for closure. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

01 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Similar editing patterns in general, this particular edit with same effect and similar comment, which Oglesruins originally edit warred over. Starebube has recently been warned over edit warring and Hartsols was involved in warring over article renaming. In both cases, similar to Oglesruins, no evidence of use of talk pages. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hartsols: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico&diff=609149416&oldid=609027885
 * Starebube: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico&diff=610994610&oldid=610892909
 * Oglesruins: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico&diff=601105941&oldid=600983471

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Very obvious - passes the duck test with flying colours. Same edits and same problem of WP:NOTHERE that got them blocked in the first place...that is... Dishonest and gaming behavior, editing as a battleground and no interest in working collaboratively.-- Moxy (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Both accounts blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

05 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Aspentone is continuing where Starebube left off, particularly at Santa Lucía Riverwalk ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santa_Luc%C3%ADa_Riverwalk&diff=610862433&oldid=610718199 Starebube], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santa_Luc%C3%ADa_Riverwalk&diff=611418168&oldid=610923823 Aspentone]) and at Portal:Nudity/Selected picture ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Nudity/Selected_picture&diff=611120806&oldid=611119386 Starebube], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Nudity/Selected_picture&diff=611621444&oldid=611130264 Aspentone]) John of Reading (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' So we now have many socks,,,, can we get a range block...if not we will be here forever. -- Moxy (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

08 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * New sockpuppet named User:Udderrukor. Can we get a rang block this editor is going to keep doing this. Does not even try to hide. as seen here back to the same edits as master account User:Oglesruins -- Moxy (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)




 * Another sock blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The clearest connection is Oglesruins and Udderrukor's move of Rubén Omar Romano. After that, the connection is a bit more tenuous. Moxy reverted edits to Sport in Mexico by previous socks. Udderrukor then reverted back. All of the accounts have an obsession with the federal districts of Mexico, but the edit history of Mexico City is so extensive, that it is difficult to parse out specific matching edits.

The connection between Udderrukor and Kindpoem is clear. Once I had blocked Udderrukor, Kindpoem appeared and reverted Sport in Mexico, San Cristóbal de las Casas, and El Chavo del Ocho after I and Thelmadatter reverted the previous sock's edits. Their habit of creating their talk page is also rather unusual. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2014 (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

 * Blocked as an obvious duck. Requesting a check into feasibility of a range block as the autoblock is not working. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One more sock blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * - King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - I'll leave it to a CU to decide if a rangeblock is necessary at this point, but in any case a sleeper check would be good. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅:


 * The following are highly :
 * (no edits)
 * (no edits)


 * - While there is more than one range this user is active on, I have only blocked one due to collateral damage issues. Tiptoety  talk 22:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All blocked, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

16 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Yet another - Contributions are the exact same as previous ID's. This can been seen at Sport in Mexico: Revision history (same edit as User:Kindpoem, User:Udderrukor, User:Razesuds and User:Oglesruins) There is also Mexico City: Revision history with the same problem. -- Moxy (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2014 (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

 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and compared behavior, then blocked and tagged. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  19:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

21 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Procedural report before I block as WP:DUCK. Ran across this edit at which matches Oglesruins' from before. Additionally, common interest in editing as past socks with recent edits at, , , and others.—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC) —Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2014 (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

 * Sock blocked and tagged.—Bagumba (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that Stackskin account was created on 22 March 2013, whereas Oglesruins—the currently listed sockmaster— was created later on 20 February 2014. Not sure if the sockmaster should be changed for this case.—Bagumba (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While the diffs make this a duck case, I would recommend asking for a CU to flush out any other sleepers before changing the case name. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅:
 * These other unused accounts fit the naming pattern and are ✅ from the above:
 * ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These other unused accounts fit the naming pattern and are ✅ from the above:
 * ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These other unused accounts fit the naming pattern and are ✅ from the above:
 * ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * All accounts identified via check user are blocked. Users with edits have also been tagged.  If we are going to rename the case,  seems to be the oldest account, created on March 6, 2013.—Bagumba (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave it with this name, because there are a lot of account which have been blocked and tagged using this title as a reference and Oglesruins has by far the largest number of edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

27 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See history of Portal:Nudity/Selected picture; the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Nudity/Selected_picture&diff=614586648&oldid=611731449 edit by Uptonvexes] is the same as the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Nudity/Selected_picture&diff=611130195&oldid=611120977 one by Starebabe] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Nudity/Selected_picture&diff=611720653&oldid=611640353 Aspentone].

Could that image be added to one of the blacklists? John of Reading (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2014 (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

 * , bordering on ✅ - these are editing from a different location, but that's understandable. Their technical details match perfectly, though.
 * As for the blacklist, I see that it has already been requested at WT:BADIMAGE. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the blacklist, I see that it has already been requested at WT:BADIMAGE. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the blacklist, I see that it has already been requested at WT:BADIMAGE. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the blacklist, I see that it has already been requested at WT:BADIMAGE. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the blacklist, I see that it has already been requested at WT:BADIMAGE. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the blacklist, I see that it has already been requested at WT:BADIMAGE. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

27 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Yet another new account making the same edit at Portal:Nudity/Selected picture. The edit by Loftclt is the same as the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Nudity/Selected_picture&diff=611130195&oldid=611120977 one by Starebabe] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Nudity/Selected_picture&diff=611720653&oldid=611640353 Aspentone]. John of Reading (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2014 (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

 * ✅ and blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

28 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

sock puppet was created after another sock puppet User:Reefhesse was blocked and continues doing the same changes (edit warring) to the page as previous puppet had been doing despite warning on his talk page. Yxifix (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

He made a revision concerning football logo originally by sockmaster Oglesruins. Yxifix (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2014 (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

 * Given the number of socks found I think it's worth a CheckUser confirming and doing a sleeper check. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, but I didn't see any other accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

29 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The talk page is entirely constructed by Beckyknow1 and they appear to be confessing to being a sockpuppet here. Their only other edits appear to be vandalism and copying their user page from here. I am One of Many (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2014 (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

 * I don't know who this is, but they appear to be ❌ to this sockmaster. I blanked the spurious user and user talk pages. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action given CU result. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

06 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See the history of Portal:Nudity/Selected picture; Palmp has made the same edit as several other Oglesruins sockpuppets. John of Reading (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2014 (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

 * User blocked and tagged. If not WP:DUCK, definitely WP:NOTHERE.—Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Requesting the obligatory checkuser given prolific sock history.—Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

06 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

See the history of Argentine Football Association; Oglesruins's sockpuppets Aspentone and Stackskin, both of which are now blocked indefinitely, have performed exactly the same page moves and edits in the past. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2014 (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

 * These two are ✅ as each other, but to anything else due to proxy abuse:


 * is also using a proxy, and so is . for all proxies. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on my recent experience with this sockfarm, I'm going to call all three of these highly . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

14 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User has been moving pages like his previous times without explaining. After I gave a reason why it's wrong the user said "please, do not start" like if it knew who I was. The user also uses insulting comments in summaries like this and this which other previously blocked accounts have done as well like here, here and here. The user has also uploaded images like it has in blocked accounts.  GoPurple  'n  Gold24   00:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Re-introducing 11 classic Oglesruins edits: Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This new account has moved some pages to bad titles including moving a category page that is now just an empty cat. Have asked at "Move request" to have these fixed (restored) -- Moxy (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I got a snippy message on my talk page from this user when I kindly informed him that his CSD tag was incorrect. Safiel (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is ✅ and blocked, along with sleeper account . I've also blocked a couple of proxies discovered during the check. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

29 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User has written similar comments as in previous Oglesruins sockpuppet blocked accounts like here. User is also doing other Oglesruins sockpuppet edits such as making new categories and fixing grammar.  GoPurple  'n  Gold24   03:19, 29 July 2014 (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

 * and are ✅ and blocked.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  17:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

29 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Has been doing the same edits for the same articles that previously blocked Oglesruins sockpuppets have done.  GoPurple  'n  Gold24   21:47, 29 July 2014 (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

 * and are ✅, blocked and tagged. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  21:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

30 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Doing same type of edits and writing same comments on edit summaries that previously blocked Oglesruins accounts have done.  GoPurple  'n  Gold24   02:34, 30 July 2014 (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

 * I've blocked and tagged as well as the sleeper account  and also semi-protected a couple of target articles.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  20:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

7 August 2014
I had noticed the protection of the pages Mexico City and Liga MX, but I thought they were protected due to another sockpuppeteer. In this case Oglesruins is just another sockpuppet of the long-term Sockpuppet investigations/Waldemar15. Based upon what I've seen in the archive, Oglesruins' accounts have edited pages related to Mexico like Tuxtla Gutiérrez (protection log), UNAM-related pages, including the Template:National Autonomous University of Mexico (Oglesruins vs. Waldemar15's sock); the way Waldemar15 autoconfirm his accounts: Kravekoors vs. Oglesruins. The removal of content from Sport in Mexico, edits to City Club (wholesale club). Based upon behavior, I'm requesting Oglesruins' case to be merged with Waldemar's case. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 18:03, 7 August 2014 (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

 * Could a clerk please review this request and determine next steps? The Waldemar15 accounts are stale so there is no CU action to take.  Risker (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved, I feel the gap and the same edits are sufficient. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

16 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Has re-instated edits made by Oglesruins at Portal:Nudity/Intro and Portal:Nudity/box-header John of Reading (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2014 (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

 * Airtrip was blocked by Drmies. Mike V  •  Talk  21:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. If nothing else they exposed a bunch of open proxies that are now blocked.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

19 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This new user has also re-instated the Oglesruins edits at Portal:Nudity/Intro and Portal:Nudity/box-header John of Reading (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2014 (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

 * ✅ and blocked.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

11 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User has been blocked various times before. The user is known for moving many pages including Mexican football/soccer stadium pages like he/she did here recently and here in February 2014. The user also uses similar insulting comments like Oglesruins use to do, like here in 2014 and here recently. Here is another similar edit summaries: and recently  GoPurple  'n  Gold24   04:41, 11 May 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

 * The following accounts (including a boatload of sleepers) are ✅ as (from the archive) and have been blocked:


 * I've blocked the lot.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note he (under the accounts and ) made a huge mess of page moves over redirects that will likely need to be undone.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Account tagged, closing. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 04:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

05 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User is re-doing the edits that other it did that I reverted just like other Waldemar15 accounts have done. The user is using the same type of insults it usually does. Like here, here, and here.  GoPurple  'n  Gold24   23:15, 5 July 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

 * , and  have all been blocked as ✅ socks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  23:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - YGM. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  01:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the larger range provided by via email I've also blocked  and  as  technical and likely behavioural matches. There are a number of unused accounts that could potentially be sleepers, so I'll recheck the range periodically.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  18:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All accounts are blocked and tagged. Closing. TDL (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:Sinkplil reverted an edit of mine citing Black Lives Matter as the reason, which is just strange as it's irrelevant to the edits reverted. See. I then noticed that editor User:Urbanuntil posted a question on my Commons page about the image(s)(scroll to bottom) that were removed from the Immigration policy of Donald Trump article. I noticed that Urbanuntil has been blocked from EN WP as being a sockpuppet of User:Waldemar15. I have a feeling that Sinkplil, which edits similar subjects as both Waldemar15 and Urbanuntil, is also a sock of the same user. Missvain (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also just looked at the archive for the Waldemar15 investigation and it seems similar to other user complaints - weird insults and reverting content. Editing about similar food content, etc. Missvain (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Examples from Missvain


 * 1) Jjzt97 and Waldemar15 share a very similar edit history despite the period of time between Waldemar15's block and Jjzt97's work, per.
 * 2) Example two: Waldemar15 used to edit and move redirects frequently, examples include: . You will also see Sinkplil doing the same: and Jjzt97 doing the same here.
 * 3) Jjzt97 and Zama15 edit the same footballers per evidenced here
 * 4) Sinkplil, Picklesplitilyzr and Janitor102 have all edited Mexico City. They all seem to edit captions of photographs - again, that's what brought me to Sinkplil's attention in the first place. Examples of various caption edits by Janitor102 (who has been blocked as a sock):

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


 * What??!!, oh s... --Sinkplil (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

, SPIs need to be filed under the name of the earliest account (the master), which is this case is. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't sure what to do about that and clearly missed that in the instructions! Thanks! Missvain (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

, you need to make a compelling case with WP:DIFFs (the more the better), for each assertion that you make and each account that you allege. Don't tell the clerk/CU to "look over here". Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Given that nobody involved in this case has edited in 5 years, it's going to be difficult to show socking.

-- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The filer moved this case to Sockpuppet investigations/Janitor102, so I'm closing this.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)