Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zsfgseg/Archive

Evidence submitted by Jéské Couriano
Vandals attacking admins and AN/I; are there sleepers and a blockable IP? —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 22:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * I added since he trolled my talk page yesterday. Note he is already blocked. ~ Nerdy Science Dude   (✉ message • changes) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * trolled User talk:NuclearWarfare. I have added that sock as well. These look obviously like ducks, but the underlying IP should be found and blocked. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ message • changes) 22:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 22:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To look for some underlying IP to stop this nonsense. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 01:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Too much collateral damage, I fear. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by NerdyScienceDude
See this talk page thread and this edit. Edit are very similar. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ message • changes) 01:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Obvious socks are obvious. –MuZemike 01:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by NerdyScienceDude
Trolling and sending emails with random gibberish. Would recommend a CU sweep to find possible sleepers. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 17:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 17:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the only sleeper here is (as revealed by listusers and this edit), if an admin cares to block then we can call this done and dusted, for now. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Remaining sock, Zsfgseg123456789 blocked. It looks like we're not tagging Zsfgseg anymore per Zsfgseg12345678 so I'm not tagging these socks unless any other clerk wants to.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 11:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by NerdyScienceDude
He's back... ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 22:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I just bagged User:Zsfg656456456 as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Apparently all indefed. Amalthea 23:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by NerdyScienceDude
Sock is already blocked, but he stated in an email that he has more sock puppets. I wonder if this is true. ~  Nerdy Science Dude  01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Already checked, no sleepers. There's not much we can do at this point right now as he abuses over very, very busy ranges. –MuZemike 01:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by 71.249.64.163
This IP address is used my me, a user the community previously banned. 71.249.64.163 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Thanks for sharing. Marking for close. TN X Man 22:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

07 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

For a few months this user has been socking to the point of insanity, why not check the above IPs and ranges for sleepers? access_denied (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2010 (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

 * - No. T. Canens (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

31 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Blocked by Elockid; fits the description. (I also assume that is why he's asking for the collateral damage check.) Any more kobolds hiding in the darkness? — Jeremy  ( v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.! ) 21:52, 31 January 2011 (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'm sorry, I just don't understand the nature of your request/why. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  04:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He's asking for a sleeper check. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * HelloAnnyong's got it right. I'm asking for a sleeper check. — Jeremy  ( v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.! ) 19:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No sleepers here, folks. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the colaterial damage got me confused :P Anyway, done here. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  00:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

16 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Obvious self-declared sock. CU should be done to root out sleepers. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2012 (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
No sleepers. Elockid  ( Talk ) 04:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Account tagged, marking for close. Jafeluv (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

09 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Based on username and attempted edits which were blocked by the edit filter. Also User:RedZsfgseg was blocked a week ago. Sleeper check requested. Legoktm (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2012 (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
No other accounts found.  Elockid  ( Talk ) 00:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

22 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Reporting based on their suspicious usernames. The other socks are way stale, but these are obvious enough. GABHello! 19:41, 22 March 2016 (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

 * ALl blocked and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below. Elockid Message me 16:12, 8 June 2016 (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
Already ✅ and blocked by me. Adding for reference so that things don't go stale. Elockid Message me 16:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

My suspects, related to Block me if you hate Pakis, originates from the article Baithakata College. It was created yesterday as pure advertising and deleted. Today, in spite of warnings, Lazukshiplu created it again (with the title Baithakata College, Pirojpur, Barisal) with the same text. Btw, I moved the article to the correct title and "saved" (standardized) it. My suspects are due to the fact that, in the user talk of "Block me if you hate Pakis" it appears that the page was created (and deleted) this night, between the 1st and the 3rd (the current one) creations. Btw, another suspect is due to user's behavior: Lazukshiplu seems interested to spam Facebook pages of "his" articles: Baithakata College (before my cleanup), Mugarjhor High School (before cleanup by OnionRing and, after, me), and Baithakata (a village): this is a normal 1st edit by a newcomer but, while I was checking the page, he did this (and again). So, as Block me if you hate Pakis had promotional purposes, Lazukshiplu also seems to be a spammer. The creation of Baithakata College (by Block me if...) 21 hours after first creation, and 12 hours before the 3rd one (by Lazuk), is really suspect. I'm far from being sure of my suspicion, but I think it's my duty: I'm noobsitting Lazukshiplu's creations from 2 days, and the coincidence of his promotional purposes mixed to this is really strange. It's just to remove any doubt. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:23, 10 June 2016 (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 merge. Elockid Message me 00:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lazukshiplu is ❌.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * I've blocked the confirmed accounts without tags. A new SPI should be created with Lazukshiplu as the master. Then, the accounts can be tagged.
 * This case should be merged into Sockpuppet investigations/Zsfgseg.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the confirmed accounts without tags. A new SPI should be created with Lazukshiplu as the master. Then, the accounts can be tagged.
 * This case should be merged into Sockpuppet investigations/Zsfgseg.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the confirmed accounts without tags. A new SPI should be created with Lazukshiplu as the master. Then, the accounts can be tagged.
 * This case should be merged into Sockpuppet investigations/Zsfgseg.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Case split to Sockpuppet investigations/Lazukshiplu. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

So they claim and. Already blocked, but I'd like confirmation. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:21, 26 September 2017 (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

 * There is nothing against which to compare this account, since everything is . Closing. GABgab 15:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)