Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharmenderDeol/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


CharmenderDeol

CharmenderDeol (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

04 July 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Pro-forma, see below. Blablubbs (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

02 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Recreated Draft:Saphyte, previously created by two socks see Special:Undelete/Draft:Saphyte. More crossover at Michael_K._Obeng e.g. [1] [2] [3] and at Rachid_Yazami e.g. [4] [5] [6] SmartSE (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This probably belongs to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharmenderDeol, which was split out from a previous Yoodaba report. MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

18 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


See also timings in consolidated contributions. Also compare edit summaries. Ping me for some further beans if needed. MarioGom (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 progress - ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chromestorm and Pinkypanther1234 are  Likely to each other, and  Likely to previously blocked sock FMlives4eva.
  • Dupetube12345 is  Possible to Chromestorm and Pinkypanther1234, and therefore only  Possible to previously blocked sock FMlives4eva.
  •  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation for tagging. No blocks made ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged Pinkypanther and Chromestorm. Evaluating Dupetube. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dupetube is shouting UPE and shares some quirks with the rest of this group, but I could see them being a different UPE as well.  Blocked and tagged, but this is a low-confidence tagging. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

25 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Both accounts with Mon-Fri editing and similar behavioral patterns. See overlaps:

Also Discologist created Draft:ĐÀO Minh Quân (permalink) using File:DAO_Minh_Quan.jpg, uploaded by Skybluepants24. MarioGom (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This case is being reviewed by Spicy as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • I've blocked and tagged PinkedInPumpkin because I noticed them outside of this SPI. My not addressing the other suspected socks has nothing to do with the merits of this filing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk for confirmation. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - ~TNT (she/they • talk) 13:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TL;DR  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation
  • Account groups:

13 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Same quirks as previous accounts and overlap at Draft:Michael Ede, so very likely the same person as Iamnumber55 and Alootikki96. MarioGom (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Between the technical evidence and the behavior of these accounts, I find it very likely that this is one or more people in some kind of UPE farm - and I note that Bettythebeth, Hillster, and The Cosmic Beaver's userpages have paid editing disclosures that include their employers (which is nice, but if other folks from their firm are editing without disclosure...that's not acceptable).  Blocked and tagged the lot, Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Pro forma, found while performing followup checks. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Same editing pattern, large edit summary overlap (e.g. [8][9][10]), consistent timecards. MarioGom (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added Summerlove21 [11]. MarioGom (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This case is being reviewed by Spicy as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Error404forever's edit summary patterns and general MO look very similar to what I've seen from this group before. I'm slightly less confident about Summerlove21, but the diffs presented here, plus overlap with previous accounts on [12], are enough to make me suspicious. Please compare to previous accounts and check for sleepers, as sleeper checks have proven fruitful in the past. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I compared Error404forever and Summerlove21 to an assortment of proven socks in the archives, plus some data in cuwiki. The IPs (and geolocations) differ, and there's no indication of proxy use from our proxy-detection tools. On the other hand, the user agents are such a close match, I'm tempted to be skeptical about the IPs. So, I think  Possible with a side-order of  Inconclusive  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the totality of the behaviour and the CU results, I'm convinced these accounts are related. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - please indef Error404forever and Summerlove21. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (nb. non-CU action)  Requested actions completed, closing ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 03:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Checked per history at Nick Fowler: [13] [14] [15].  Confirmed by CheckUser. – bradv🍁 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 and tagged – bradv🍁 17:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11 February 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Draft:John William Connor was created by Alootikki96. The subject was notable, so I created Jack Connor (physicist). Illsavetheworld has now added content directly from that deleted draft to the article e.g. Connor developed an interest in elementary particle work, including the bootstrap model of elementary particles and new ideas about quarks. Googling that phrase doesn't bring up any mirrors, so it seems unlikely they've stumbled across it. @MarioGom and Theroadislong: have also both raised COI/UPE concerns with them about their other creations. SmartSE (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Thanks for the speedy service! I've deleted everything they've created per G5. SmartSE (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jam Arjan, it would need to be either two people, or one person switching back and forth between two computers. I'm wondering if this is a case of closely coordinated people, potentially in different locations. Can you explain how you concluded that these were socks? I'll ping TheresNoTime as well, who has blocked some of these socks before and may have some insight. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 16:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Girth Summit: The initial discovery was via c:File:Doug Batchelor.jpg (uploaded by Excalibur1995) and Special:Undelete/Doug Batchelor, what sealed the deal was an edit summary comparison between those two and confirmed socks, especially Illsavetheworld. I am basically dead certain this is all the same tightly knit meatfarm or individual (they've started evading recently, so I'd prefer to not get more specific than that, but I can contact you privately if you aren't seeing the same thing). --Blablubbs (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. I've just noted in the archives that TNT's action here was non-CU; it was RoySmith who investigate last time, and noticed the same disparity in the geolocations. There are some notes on CU wiki; if you want to forward me any observations in an e-mail, I might expand those notes a bit. At the moment I'm swithering about whether this really ought to be two separate cases (one for each of the IP locations), or whether it makes more sense to keep it all under one roof. Other opinions would be welcome. Girth Summit (blether) 16:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Email sent :) --Blablubbs (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Blocking Fossilfuel88 and Hilofilo96 without tags for now while we figure this out) Girth Summit (blether) 16:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've discussed this off-wiki with Blablubbs, and am content to keep this all under one case based on the behaviour. I will tag the remaining socks I blocked and close. Girth Summit (blether) 14:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

25 February 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

See below --Blablubbs (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 blocked, but filing for a sleeper check. I don't want to say too much, but even a very brief comparison to the behaviour of Hillster (talk · contribs) and BettytheBeth (talk · contribs), as well as [16][17][18] should be more than enough grounds for checking. CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk – please look for others. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the technical evidence, Knight of CAW is Red X Unrelated. There's some notes in cuwiki, and Blablubbs I'll email you with a few more details. The gist is, unless you're really, really, sure about the behavioral identification, my suggestion would be to unblock. I didn't look for sleepers. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welp. Technical call notwithstanding, I am really, really, really sure. I'll leave this open in case anyone else wants to evaluate behaviour, though. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anybody jumping up to re-evaluate, so I'm going to close this. If Knight of CAW wants to protest their innocence, they can file an unblock request. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02 April 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Both working for Wiki Creators LLC per their user pages. CherylWiki007 was created shortly after ElizabethWiki2001 block, which is unappealed so far. ElizabethWiki2001 claimed to be the only editor at the company [19]. MarioGom (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note about the relation to CharmenderDeol: there seems to be a connection to the disclosed paid editors in CharmenderDeol (linked to Digitonics / Sybex Labs). I opened as a separate SPI since accounts in both cases are associated to different companies. I don't rule out that the accounts are controlled by the same person though, maybe after switching companies. MarioGom (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

wrt the CharmanderDeol linkage, does it make articles and drafts created by ElizabethWiki2001 eligible for

G5 speedy deletion? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

26 May 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Re-creating Draft:Michael Ede, which was created and re-created by two previous socks (BettytheBeth and SamratPaswan) Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • CharmenderDeol et al. is essentially a UPE farm. Given the name and obvious COI edits, Michael Ede strikes me as either the subject of the article creating an autobiography, or another (newer) UPE editor. Regardless of which they are, they've now been warned and the article has been deleted as spam. I'm going to close without action at present, though if Michael Ede make spammy edits again, they should likely be blocked for that. --Jack Frost (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

There is a lot of overlap with a past CD sock - I'm not very familiar with this group but this seems to be quite a similar pattern.

WforWriter joined shortly after JessicaBruton did and while it was before the sock was blocked and presumably didn't show up in CU, there's a lot of overlap.

Specifically, the first edit WfW makes is to Lucky Budd, which in itself isn't a huge deal, but their edit summaries are eerily similar. This edit by JB on April 14 (ve, switched) (Added Sources, Added recent information, and copyedited the article.) and then this edit on April 18th by WfW (ve, switched) (references , new information, and copy checked for mistakes.)


Not to mention that both Jessica and WfW's accounts have a spiel on their userpage about going to NYU/being from NY and have very, very similar timecards

Then we also have Daniel1996Wiki, who's edits follow Jessicas, specifically at Kyle Bass with both WfW and JB. this edit by JB on May 11 (ve, switched) (Added Sources, copyedited the article and removed information that was not credibly cited. Edited for accuracy and notability according to the guidelines of Wikipedia.) followed 2 days later by Daniel with this edit (ve, switched) (Added Sources, copy-edited the article and removed information that was not credibly cited. Edited for accuracy and notability according to the guidelines of Wikipedia.) and then edits by WforW interspersed throughout these two.


JB also had this draft link on their userpage, which was again created by them and CherylWiki007 who has a nearly identical userpage to Daniel

It's also worth noting Daniel1996Wiki created Premier Rugby Sevens, which is listed here on the nearly identical userpage of a blocked CD sock as being paid.

And we also have the obvious keep vote socking at this AFD, for an article which was created by JB. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added SalikSahmed as Daniel and this account co-edited Shyla Murray, and they share similar edit summaries to other socks here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the surface, none of these are related, but there's extensive proxy use, so I'd ignore the CU results and figure this one out just on behavior. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Behaviour looks convincing to me, especially combined with the proxy use.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Seemingly UPE editing pattern (autoconfirmed gaming and creation of dubious articles). MikvahAssasin created this sandbox draft about Elissa Altman. An identical article was created in mainspace by RebelliousPujol a few days later [20]. Both of these accounts share an obvious edit summary quirk. Matzah sedar has the same quirk, same UPE-ish behaviour, and their username, like MikvahAssassin's, contains Hebrew terms. Spicy (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - to check if this is part of a larger UPE ring. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spicy I assume UPE means Unleavened Portable Eats? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Inconclusive There is extensive proxy use by all three accounts, and the proxy usage looks more sophisticated than the typical residential "I want to watch NetFlix in a different country" kind of thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that's not unexpected. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - please indef all 3 accounts as suspected socks of each other based on behaviour. Spicy (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged. Closing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19 November 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar pattern, like the use of Hebrew terms as username, incubating drafts in sandbox and then posting on mainspace.

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 progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is much the same story as in 11 November 2022. There's extensive proxy use, and in some vague way the pattern is similar to what was seen before, but I really can't say anything beyond  Inconclusive  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. I took a brief look at some notes we've got on CharmenderDeol. Again, other than some vague patterns about proxy use, there's nothing useful CU can say about the two cases being related. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the relation to CharmenderDeol, I think it's too weak. I would advise against a merge at the moment. MarioGom (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Actually, it is definitely CharmenderDeol (the Wiki Creators LLC subgroup). This needs a merge to CharmenderDeol. MarioGom (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BEANS here, so ping me if you need them. I could use a second opinion on Petite Maman Marion. MarioGom (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  •  Blocked and tagged, including Petite Maman Marion, who fits the technical pattern fairly well. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK per previous socks ElizabethWiki2001 and CherylWiki007. Quickly editing various articles to get autoconfirmed status, then immediately worked on content eventually used to create the article Linda Gerdner. The editor Linda Gerdner, presumably the article's subject, has commented on their talk page that they paid the company Wiki Creators LLC for their work on this article. That would also make this account an undisclosed paid editor, working for the same company as the two aforementioned blocked socks. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Tangent
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I simply tried to rectify information on my page that was not factual and so in an effort to maintain my integrity. I believe that my accomplishment over the years, as made me a potential candidate for wikipedia page. I hired WikicreatorLLC to create a page. We have been working on this for almost a year. I check and paid for the services in Dec 2021. I wrote an initial draft with valuation and references. Stallone was assigned to this project. He consistly rewrote information with grammatical errors an misinformation. He would not allow a return of my investment. I we went back an forth with corrections. I was primarily concerned about the content and that it was an accurate reflection of my work and contributions. I had given him all the references in the beginning and he had included that information with numerical references and link. Finally, in November we had a draft that I believe was worthy. I still have a copy of what was submitted. What was actually place live online was a drastically cut version of what I had submitted with a lack of validating references. My greatest concern at this point was the errors would destroy my credibility. I contacted Stallone and he told me over the phone that I had received exactly what I had paid for, a wikipedia page. He would not make any corrections basically stating that his job was over. His boss then called me and I explained the problem and he said it would take time to remedy since it was already life. I asked him to call me on the Friday after Thanksgiving to let me know what he was going to do. He did not.
I did take it upon myself to make a few of the most serious errors. The first being that I worked as a Geriatrician at Stanford Unversity. Someone inserted a link define what a Geriatrican is. Basically that is a physician who has receive additional training in elder care. I have a PhD in Nursing of Older Adults with a cognate in Anthropology. I worked at Stanford as a Ethnogeriatric Nurse Specialist.
The second problem was that I had received a BSN, MA, and PhD from Iowa Wesleyan University. I did receive my BSN from there, bt they do not even have an MA and PhD program in nursing. So I felt that needed to be changed.
Shortly thereafter I received an e-mail from Stallone informing me that I should not have made those corrections because the page would be removed and I would be banned from Wikipedia. In my mind, I thought that would be better than my colleagues thinking I was not credible.
I found more significant errors. I was listed as an author on one published manuscript, but Elizabeth Swanson was listed as my co-author. That was wrong. The article actually included two Hmong American authors. Elizabeth Swanson has never worked with the Hmong people and knows nothing about that ethnic group. I tried to make the appropriate recognition of authors, but the best I could do was remove Elizabeth Swanson's name.
The other major problem was a book that I was co-editor on with Drs. Gwen Yeo and Dolores Gallagher Thompson. Many of the chapters were written my physicians and other related staff at Stanford University. They were top notch people in the field. The reference was written as if I were the sole author. There goes my reputation. I had told Stallone but he did not respond. As you know I attempted to make a correction, but it was not as simple as making a simple editorial change.
Stallone did tell me that he did not make any of the erroneous changes that went live on line. He said that was done after he submitted. I asked to see what he had submitted.
This has been the worst nightmare of my career. I still believe that I have made significant contributions to my discipline, both her and abroad. I would like the opportunity to submit the final draft that was submitted. I know this page is listed as an orphan. I was trying to change this links so the content was verifiable. I would like to be given the opportunity to work with someone at Wikipedia to make this dream come try. I am a Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing (FAAN) which was removed from the page. That in itself indicates important contributions that I have made.
I have also received major awards for contributions. Please help me. Linda Gerdner (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Please, indef the account and tag as suspected to CharmenderDeol. This is clearly part of the Wiki Creators LLC group (ElizabethWiki2001, CherylWiki007, JessicaBruton). Those with access to paid-en-wp@ can get additional evidence, but I don't think it's strictly required. MarioGom (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linda Gerdner: Please, note that this is not an investigation against you, but against Wiki Creators LLC. I have collapsed your comment, since there is no necessity of drawing further attention to your page in this report. I'm sorry about this situation. If you need further advice, feel free to contact me at my talk page or privately by email. MarioGom (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Editing style, username, stylometry suggests that AlcarrasEstiu (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (who created spam Cariuma (shoes)) is part of this spam group. This goes back to Isingness (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) [34] 69.165.235.238 (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Well, they certainly look like a spammer - random edits to gain autoconfirmed, then immediately make an article about a little-known company. They're using proxies, which makes CU data inconclusive, but they certainly look a lot like CharmenderDeol socks to me. They are  Confirmed to BonnieTheGardner, and I'm going to block both without tags for now - pinging BlaBlubbs for a second opinion on the link to the master. Girth Summit (blether) 19:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is very likely related to Wiki Creators LLC (cohort described in the archive), and thus, to CharmenderDeol. Feel free to ping me privately for further evidence. MarioGom (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks MarioGom - that's appreciated. Repinging Blablubbs, since I botched the last one - any thoughts? Girth Summit (blether) 21:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Girth Summit and MarioGom: It's always kind of awkward to translate these cases into templatespeak, but I'd say AlcarrasEstiu is  Likely to e.g. Kangroosius from a technical perspective. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Blablubbs - based on your observations, MarioGom's and my own, I'm tagging as suspected and requesting locks. Girth Summit (blether) 18:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CharmenderDeol/Archive&oldid=1138642681"