Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zero sharp/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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

Dormant and double blank (user/talk_user) account created in February 2019. On 15 December 2020, started and finished editing with the immediate nomination of just one article and a COI comment on its talk page. The user never touched anything else. gidonb (talk) 04:45, 22 December 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

 * These four accounts are ✅ to each other. Blocked, tagged and closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I see a similar account setup as their previous socks, similar interests, and similar editing patterns. gidonb (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Blablubbs, I'm not an expert on Zero sharp and do not remember him as an editor. This is definitely a weakness versus the other banned editors for whom I found sockpuppets over the years (notably Haham Hanuka and Wikixx), who I remember well as editors. Nevertheless, last time when I saw an out-of-the-blue meritless nomination for the Israeli subject domain I thought that this might be a sockpuppet and it was identified by others as Zero sharp's. Here we have a similar nomination by a new user who came around shortly after Zero's previous sockpuppets were blocked. In the history I see again a deep interest in yoga, erasing of a vandalism notice, and cursing, so I thought I'd notify again for professional consideration. This is the stronger case. I have stricken through the weaker case that showed fewer similarities. In any case, this is not a crusade against anyone and there are no objectives other than to keep WP a safe and fair place for everyone. Best, gidonb (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User started an "ANI" procedure after I reported him. In this procedure he seems to express concern that his IP might be checked. gidonb (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

gidonb, all this over a template discussion? There is no evidence I'm a sockpuppet of a user I've never heard of. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I am involved in the TfD discussion with the three editors mentioned here. From there, I have no clue that sockpuppetry would be happening. I also note that in that discussion OP gidonb was casting BF/PA arguments. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * His edit summary states "JIC" or Just in case. That is not how a sockpuppetry investigation works. There needs to be evidence as stated on the main page. There must be immediate evidence provided and as gidonb states, "I see a similar account setup as their previous socks, similar interests, and similar editing patterns". That is pretty vague which of course won't be investigated per the rules. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've informed Catchpoke on his talk page. You can find it here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The summary Just In Case came with a change from "he" to "they". It means that I'm not 100% sure of the gender of a person in a discussion. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What a spurious nomination by a hypocrite.Catchpoke (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so careful in your wording, . Now would you please comply with the CU request for diffs? -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I propose this investigation be closed, Blablubbs. It's been four days and no evidence has been provided because Gidonb is only here to cause drama because Catcpoke and I don't agree with him on the Tfd linked above. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have shown strong commonalities between a disruptive user and a known sockpuppeteer for whom I have detected a sockpuppet in the past. Whether they are the same, this is a similar case, or all is coincidental is for the analyst to decide. Also, I have never tied between the discussion and the investigation here. On the contrary, I participated in the discussion as if this investigation did not exist while you kept trying to introduce it. Facts do matter. 16:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Facts do matter. But you have not provided any facts so far. But I don't see why anyone would open this investigation when it transpired from the Tfd. I don't see why you would've suspect me in the first place. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This SPI now is part of an ANI report. Please, or any other CU editor: why has this claim not been thrown out already? -DePiep (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * --Blablubbs&#124;talk 19:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I recommend closing this for lack of evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the diffs you interpolated since I recommended closure, and I see nothing that indicates a connection between Catchpoke and the master or their socks. As 's request states, you must present comparison diffs, meaning diffs of Catchpoke's edits alongside diffs of the master-socks' edits that demonstrate a behavioral connection. Instead, you focus only on those edits of Catchpoke's that bother you, like weirdly claiming that calling you a "hypocrite" is "cursing". It's not, but, regardless, if you could show that the master/socks have called editors who disagree with them hypocrites, that would be some evidence of a connection. For these reasons, I am closing this report. If Blablubbs disagrees, they are welcome to reopen it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was meaning to get to this – no objections to the close from my side. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 07:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)