Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis/Archive/1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Evlekis

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

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

04 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


This was suspected by

User:PRODUCER at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#Deleting sourced material the Weight of chains a few days ago, and I told him to write it up here, but they didn't. I wasn't initially convinced, but today I saw this edit. I find it exceedingly unlikely that an actual new user would just so happen to match Evlekis' topic area so diligently. In addition, the username means old gusle, so it sounds somewhat self-deprecating and very much on-topic. Either that's him, or they could be some other old user who's been active in the topic area, or they've wikihounded some of us others around. Or it's an actual newbie whose learning curve is apparently a very steep angle, in which case I'm ready to apologize. I hope a simple checkuser can clear this up. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

Comment from Evlekis

The appointment of that editor coincides with my topic ban but I vehemently deny any association with the account. Many of the Yugoslav-related pages remain on my watchlist and I am poised and ready to revert by the bucketload where users have messed about while I am out of reach, so nobody is doing my bidding for me (for example[1], this would have provoked rollback had I been allowed). Furthermore, I am not in total agreement with every edit submitted by Staro Gusle. So to clarify, no that is not me, nor am I acquainted with the account holder. Disbelieve me of you will though I maintain this to be the case.

argue) 18:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Please also note that this user has knowledge that I admit I did not know, example[2]. Compare this related edit[3] to what on my part is ignorance[4], embarrassing too. But if you want a radical inconsistency, check this comment by Staro Gusle[5] which could not remotely be related to me in light of this comment I posted a year ago. We may have edited most of the same pages, I can see this being an editor I can work with without conflict, I have no issues with his editing and I suppose he would be all right with me too, but we are not the same. I might be able to find more proof if the admin dealing with this requests so.

argue) 18:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Another: PRODUCER is pleased with himself on thinking he's caught a

argue) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Point of interest: I was mentioned here[7] by more than one user yet none bothered to inform me that the discussion was taking place. I never had a proper chance to defend myself and all because my supposed alter-ego has involved himself on an article I have not previously touched. So disciplinary is required there. But now I shall take this opportunity to divulge the following: I have not watched Weight of Chains therefore am not well placed to comment on what should and should not feature in the article. I do know who Malagurski is however, and I am also familiar with the now rotten and ongoing arguments between pro- and anti-Yugoslavs the world over so I know what to expect, and given Malagurski's tender age and the nature of the cast and plot, I am sure there must be flaws in the movie therefore I support the inclusion of a sourced criticism paragraph. No way would I have continuously removed it. I am furious that the matter passed and I never contributed, but somebody should have told me.

argue) 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]


Comment from Staro Gusle
  1. @ Evlekis. Have you read "defending yourself against claims"? It says- 'If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding. If there is a good reason for the evidence provided, point it out in your own section. Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.'. No need to panic now is there! :) Staro Gusle (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. @WillianH. FTR, I located this talk because I received notifications that two users mentioned me the past 24 hours. Evlekis and Joy. Nothing further to add. Staro Gusle (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. @Joy. Very well observed, my user name is "on-topic". Why, did you think I am trying to conceal coming from ex-Yugoslavia? Staro Gusle (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


To admins and assessors from Evlekis.
Dear all, I accept that "likely" stops short of "definite" though there is a way I can prove there are two human beings involved, provided Staro Gusle continue his daily editing in like manner to what we have witnessed since his inception. At the moment, if Producer's observation is correct then the two of us edit from Britain, then take notice that on Wednesday 8 May 2013 I am scheduled to fly to Belgrade as I shall be in the area for a few days. During that time I have no intention of editing since I focus on Balkan subjects and I cannot touch most. Upon arrival, I shall send an IP note here, then I shall log in to confirm the authentication of the IP, all within the minute. With hope, Staro Gusle will be editing from a British address and then the idea that this is not one and the same person will be unequivocal. Is that fair?
argue) 17:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course I wouldn't do it Dennis! If I'd wanted to get a friend to log in for me then I wouldn't have had to wait until the day I fly, I could just do it now. To William, I don't claim to be innocent, only a small child can be innocent, where you're concerned I am not guilty and I'll still be not guilty if I get the block, and even ten years from now I'll be not guilty then. Well I suppose if it's possible with proxies and computer magic to operate from a Norwegian IP whilst in Samoa then we have no evidence that Staro Gusle or I for that matter are geographically close-by - let alone the absurd and disturbed suggestion despite my evidence of different nature as people that we are the SAME person.
argue) 19:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Belated comment from bobrayner

I would point out that Staro Gusle's editing spree started when Evlekis was blocked, and Staro Gusle has continued to advance the usual positions that got Evlekis a topic ban and 1RR &c over at WP:AE. For instance: [8][9]. This even continues on quite obscure articles, for instance: [10] [11]; [12] [13]; and so on. What is that, if not a sockpuppet? Evlekis has previously used socks to evade editing restrictions; this is hardly news. bobrayner (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evlekis mentions ARBMAC warnings. I should point out this. Evlekis tried the same rant about me a few days ago at WP:AE, and got hit by a boomerang - specifically, Evlekis got a block, a topic-ban. 1RR &c. And, whilst Evlekis was blocked, Staro Gusle suddenly started editing, pushing the same points as Evlekis. Just like 84.74.30.129 (talk · contribs) and 84.74.29.21 (talk · contribs) &c in the past. I shouldn't have to point out the Arbmac result, but Evlekis promptly removed any sign of it from his talkpage. Surely we're not expected to believe that Staro Gusle is a friend or housemate of Evlekis, who coincidentally pushes the same points from the same computer, coincidentally picking up the crusade when Evlekis has to stop due to a block. How long should en.wikipedia tolerate Balkan pov-pushers who repeatedly evade sanctions? bobrayner (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Staro Gusle does not share a house with me nor is he somebody that I can say I have met. You have decided that we are "one and the same" purely because we oppose your slanted tendentious viewpoints. I have once edited without logging in, admitted it and was warned for it. Those IPs you list are not even located in Britain where I live. If you have unequivocal evidence (ie. not "coincidence" or conjecture) that I have been abusing multiple accounts, provide it, if not - on your bike.
argue) 23:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Meh. There's nothing to be gained from me arguing with Evlekis, but just in case any third party takes Evlekis' comments at face value, I would invite them to read the arbitration enforcement page; I presented more evidence of earlier sockpuppetry there. Then Evlekis got blocked, then a new account, Staro Gusle, suddenly appeared to continue Evlekis' edits. After the block was lifted, Staro Gusle kept on going - Evlekis is still topic-banned from that whole area. And then checkuser connects Evlekis and Staro Gusle. Why are we still here debating this? How long should enwiki tolerate pov-pushers who repeatedly evade sanctions? bobrayner (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In continuation of the above comment, Rayner has presented ZERO evidence of sockpuppetry on my part either before or now and I was never blocked for that reason, it had been an alleged BLP violation coupled with an admin's view of "tendentious" editing. All he has done is whimpered that a bunch of accounts that disagree with him are all "Evlekis". Note that he has neither addressed the multitude of differences between my supposed alter-ego and me which if inspected, are more striking than the similarities, nor has he accepted the geographical location difference between the IP he alleged was mine yet so crudely screams murder when realising that an account to oppose him is British-based. His entire rhetoric is based on the presumption that Staro Gusle continues Evlekis' edits and that they are one and the same. I am not prepared either to argue with Aunt Sally but it should be noted that this user who has introduced nothing to this discussion worthwhile has much to gain from the elimination of accounts to disagree with his slanted position. Give it time, the list of "suspected socks" will get bigger and bigger since that will be his new tool for trying to rid accounts that harm his deliberate POV pushing.
argue) 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The Zetatrans connection is hardly surprising. Compare these pairs of edits by the two: [14] [15]; [16] [17]; [18] [19]; [20] [21]; [22] [23]; [24] [25]; [26] [27]; [28] [29]; [30] [31]; [32] [33]; and so on. I can provide a lot more if necessary - most of Zetatrans' edits seem to be repeating Evlekis' reverts, since Evlekis' 1RR restriction (and now topic ban) makes it very difficult to push Evlekis' preferred wording into articles. Both follow me round. bobrayner (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting Bobrayner

Save for the first 14 words of Rayner's statement, the rest is utter nonsense. Two Checkusers have failed to prove a link between me and the other account. They just show that we have edited a handful of the same articles and we have shared habits such as starting sentences with a capital letter and finishing with a full stop/period. There are countless editors that have endorsed the versions our two accounts have provided the same revisions for. Rayner's real issue is that each time this has happened, he has been the chief architect pushing for the alternative versions (eg. "Serb military in 1999", spellings per Albanian customs) whereupon that very statement above offering nothing new to the conversation can only be taken as an extended smear campaign. Yes, five minutes he has been back on Balkan subjects and has placed himself at the centre of an altercation immediately, this after having received two ARBMAC warnings in four months. Already making tendentious edits to

argue) 22:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment from PRODUCER

I'm the original editor who brought up the issue at the ANI noticeboard and I thank Joy for bringing it up here. The fact that many details of very obscure articles are edited by the two in same or similar manner is highly suspicious to me. Again this includes the editing of Serb/Montenegrin/Yugoslav perpetration of crimes in

TALK) 22:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Too many coincidences for whom? You personally? Are those consistencies limited to our two accounts? What about the other articles he has edited and the radical differences in our editing? For your information, I have already refuted your concerns, I will not repeat myself. The Ferizaj vs Uroševac issue has been cleared up on this page. Just read this[49].
argue) 23:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You attempted to refute one point. That diff you cited was in March and there you replaced the wikilink of Ferizaj with Uroševac so to cite that as having "endorsed" the name is odd to say the least. Later in April you explicitly said "when in 1999 your marvelous BBC was reporting from Kosovo, we all heard them speak of Uroševac, nobody recalls Ferizaj" and then mocked the Albanian name. Your view on the Albanian name is clear and you evidently finished what you began with the other account. --◅
TALK) 00:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
PRODUCER, you have made your
argue) 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
FAO clerk/admins

In response to Bobrayner who has entered this discussion on alleged sockpuppetry citing 84.74.30.1, Please be aware that the account is based in Switzerland. Take it as you will.

argue) 23:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Evlekis has posted a note on my talk page, categorically denying any association along the lines of the above messages. I stand by my original technical assessment - that from the technical side of things, these two accounts are most likely operated by the same individual - and I'm happy for another CheckUser to review my work. Marking as relisted. WilliamH (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looked over this at WilliamH's request. I'd call this  Likely. T. Canens (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too would call this  Possible bordering on  Likely. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: to admins and assessors — this will not be considered. CheckUser is never used to prove innocence, because it cannot prove a negative. WilliamH (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is interesting. I have just been taking another look at the data. The following are incontrovertibly  Confirmed socks of Evlekis:

WilliamH (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: I've pinged User:Sandstein, as he was involved in the previous problems with Evlekis.[50] I've been reading over the metric tonne of data here for a few days, and while some of it is contradictory and would include socks arguing with socks, I'm strongly leaning in the direction that Staro Gusle is a sock of Evlekis. Combined with the "incontrovertibly confirmed" finding by WilliamH (which is a rare and extraordinarily strong statement), I would lean towards blocks all around. However, I would prefer to have Sandstein's opinion on the whole affair (assuming he is willing), as he is more familiar with the editor. The totality of the evidence (combined with the current restrictions) mean this could result in a very long block or indef for Evlekis, so getting it right matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I topic-banned Evlekis from everything (ex-)Yugoslavia-related on 25 April. The checkusers above confirm that he has certainly violated that topic ban with Zetatrans (e.g. [51]), and likely with Staro Gusle (e.g. [52]). Consequently, in enforcement of the topic ban, and in application of
    WP:ARBMAC#Standard discretionary sanctions, I am blocking Evlekis for a year. Concurrently, under normal administrator authority, as per Dennis Brown's suggestion, I am indefinitely blocking Evlekis for severe sockpuppetry. I am also indefinitely blocking all three confirmed or likely socks.  Sandstein  16:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
08 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Looks like another Evlekis sock; all edits are on Evlekis' preferred points... presumably 92.40.180.233 and 92.40.16.39 too, although those IPs have each only made one recent edit (at the time of writing), just adding that for background information really bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and another two; it appears Evlekis feels quite strongly this evening, and is using 188.29.220.62 and 188.31.91.76 too. bobrayner (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite mobile use of different IPs; I think there's little point playing whack-a-mole by blocking individual IPs, but any rangeblock wide enough to be effective would presumably cause quite a lot of collateral damage. If the problem persists, would it be better to semiprotect affected pages instead? bobrayner (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

TDL (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

TALK) 23:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


09 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

The latest Evlekis incarnations have started following me to unrelated articles again; [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] &c. Our Balkan articles were always going to have NPOV problems, but this change in editing behaviour just exports the problem to the rest of enwiki, and it can hardly be addressed by page protection. See also 92.40.147.167 and various other short-term IPs... are there any practical solutions here? Or not? bobrayner (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

188.29.25.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), too; lots of revert-stalking like [61] [62] [63] &c, standard Evlekis editing but the volume has increased a bit. bobrayner (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of revert-stalking by 188.29.25.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) too. There's not much point in blocking a one-edit IP, but when there are dozens of edits... bobrayner (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More revert-stalking by 188.29.1.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 188.28.20.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can't somebody just click the "block" button and let me get on with normal editing? A little help would go a long way. bobrayner (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and * 94.197.199.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). bobrayner (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Do me a favor and add

TALK) 01:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Could an admin please impose an interaction ban on Evlekis interacting with Bobrayner - for the well-evidenced revert-stalking per above diffs (and which is ongoing)? Then at least any reverts he does of Bobrayner's edits can be rolled back on sight. At the moment Evlekis only has a topic ban on ex-Yugoslavia topics, so when Bobrayner edits other articles, the edits can't be automatically rollbacked without edit summaries etc. I'm happy to stalk Bobrayner (in the nicest possible way) and help with the whack-a-mole... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would an interaction ban be necessary? Evlekis is already blocked, so any sockpuppet edits made to circumvent this block can already be reverted on sight. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was of the understanding that
rollbacking on sight was only permitted on edits by banned editors, not blocked ones? Or am I not reading it right? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I missed that you were talking about rollbacks in particular and not reverts in general.
WP:EVASION says that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." I suppose the rules for rollback are stricter and may not cover this case. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks Dennis, I will follow your advice. There are actually a number of Evlekis-related RPPs that need attention for semis. Could you do the honours, please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already did. Can only protect those that have multiple action since the block. Have a day job, but I will poke in from time to time to review at RFPP today. This isn't a perfect solution, but the least drama-filled and most effective I can think of. Again, use
WP:DENY when possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Good points; thanks. Hopefully I can draw a line under an earlier point - Evlekis is already under an interaction ban, and a topic ban (which covers the Kosovo articles but not the spillover), and the edits are evading a block. If that isn't enough to justify rollback, what is? Similarly, I don't think there's much point going to AN/I and starting a dramathread asking for a community ban, or going to AE and asking for some kind of additional sanction there, or anything else in that vein; it wouldn't really change how the community responds to these edits. Even this SPI is now redundant, I think - it's not an investigation any more, nobody else needs convincing, it's just another page where we can say "this IP is editing disruptively". bobrayner (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
10 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


The above are two  Confirmed socks of Evlekis. Filing purely for posterity so that edits can be reverted/removed in accordance with sanctions. WilliamH (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2013 (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


10 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Creation of redirects related to yesterday's redirect created by a confirmed sock (they related to redirecting names of settlements in Kosovo to the Serbian spelling, including diacritics). Also trying to get sympathetic editors to carry on his campaign at North Kosovo crisis. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:44, 10 May 2013 (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
13 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


More  Confirmed socks of Evlekis, editing from the same public wi-fi facility as Staro Gusle (talk · contribs). WilliamH (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2013 (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
16 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

I'm concerned that Neutral Fair Guy has been misattributed. NFG created an account at a time when Evlekis would normally be editing, and then made a series of very WP:POINTY edits about an obscure but controversial epithet, hours after Evlekis had ranted about exactly the same epithet in an obscure section of my talkpage that nobody else is likely to read. NFG then goes on to overlap a remarkable 21 pages with Evlekis - quite an unlikely feat for an account which only made 53 edits before getting blocked. bobrayner (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWriter is right on one point; that Evlekis "dealt with" Neutral Fair Guy. Unfortunately, that one point is quite compatible with the appearance that Neutral Fair guy was a false-flag. Admins will presumably be able to see the deleted revisions of the page that Neutral Fair Guy created; with the same title which Evlekis mentioned, out of the blue and a complete non-sequiteur, in this rant about neutrality and fairness hours before the Neutral Fair Guy account was created. Other edits by NFG seem to mirror Evlekis' interests - for instance NFG's first (surviving) diff is switching Peja for Peć on an obscure article about Miss Kosovo 2003, and so on. bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

  • This request is bad faith nonscense, i will explain to admin who finds this questionable, but this is sock of DE user Sinbad Baron, per at least several reasons. Evlekis was one of the users who dealt with this vandal, he would be the last person on earth to create this account, without any relevant reason. Also, user Bob didnt presented even one diff, source or argument for this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
There is a possible to likely technical match to Evlekis, and nothing to suggest a technical match to Sinbad Barron. WilliamH (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Looking at a number of factors, including the limited number of contribs of Neutral Fair Guy[67], an extradinary number of common articles [68], similar POV, times of edits, timing between edits and styles, combined with the CU data that shows this is at least plausible, leads me to the conclusion that this is a sock of Evlekis. Reblocked and tagged as such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Another Evlekis sock; used by Evlekis to evade 1RR on Cinema of Kosovo, then repeated Evlekis reverts on Hiking in Kosovo and NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters then followed me to Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina to revert me factual errors into that article. Has now repeated Evlekis' trick of taking me to An/EW even though I haven't actually breached 3RR. Softblock, maybe? bobrayner (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little analysis

It's worth taking a look at 84.74.30.129's editing history. Let's break it down and compare to matching Evlekis edits:

  • Cinema of Kosovo: [69] [70] [71] are the same as [72]
  • NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters: [73] is the same as [74]
  • Hiking in Kosovo: [75] [76] [77] is the same as [78] and [79] (the latter another confirmed Evlekis sock)
  • Canvassing FKPCascais to join in an edit war to reinsert factual errors, in the hope of getting me blocked at ANEW: [[80] versus [81].

I freely admit that my desire to

does not count as a revert for 3RR purposes, so it looks like the trap is broken. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2013 (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
27 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

This is not an urgent request; all accounts involved are already blocked. I just found some interesting evidence and would like to set the record straight (like with the Neutral Fair Guy false-flag). Any CU would be stale so it's down to a good old-fashioned comparison of editing patterns.

It seemed odd that Evlekis' first edit was to praise three editors on a talkpage (then the second edit turned his userpage into a bluelink). One of those editors is Celtmist.

The Celtmist account was created before Evlekis, only has 561 edits but overlaps on an amazing 134 pages with Evlekis (plus whatever has been deleted) - mostly Balkans but some other stuff too which seems unlikely to be coincidental. Including obscure pages like DND_(disambiguation), a former dab page which is now a redirect. Celtmist and Evlekis both edited the same line, which pointed to an article on a non-notable Serb pop duo, D'n'D, that has now been deleted (so this is another one that doesn't show up with standard tools, I don't know how many others are out there).

The DnD (Serb pop duo) article was moved by Ragusan, who may have done more substantial work on it; it's deleted so I can't tell - Ragusan was notified when it got PRODded but that might have been the result of a copy-and-paste move. Ragusan was also blocked as a sock of Moroccan Spaniard, and Ragusan overlaps 85 pages with Evlekis despite only having 277 extant edits. Those 85 include the usual Balkan topics but also some obscure, unrelated pages like this TV episode which has since become a redirect.

There are more coincidences that don't appear on the Intersect Contribs tool. For instance, Evlekis created Leave to Remain, then 2 days later Ragusan redirected Leave to remain to it.

Also there's Jordovan (talk · contribs) - pushing similar points to Evlekis, only made 62 edits yet overlaps 24 pages with Evlekis.

There are various similarities in individual diffs. Apart from pushing certain Balkan POVs there's a shared interest in specific music genres &c. They even share an interest in the etymology of Gord: [82] [83] [84]

All three edit human height in support of the contention that Montenegrins are the tallest people: [85] [86] [87]

Most bizarrely, despite all and sundry claiming Balkan connections, they both seem to have been from the same very small town in the UK. I am wary of outing, but I have diffs in which the Celtmist and Evlekis both mention this; would happily email those to any interested administrator. Alternatively, if folk feel that providing diffs does not count as outing, I'll add them here.

Ragusan and Celtmist were indef blocked in November 2006 as socks of Moroccan Spaniard. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ragusan cast doubt on that - and somebody else raised the possibility of Evlekis (at that time a new account) being involved too. Both accounts were created before the Evlekis account, so technically Evlekis would be the sockpuppet, but that account is much longer-lived and there's already an SPI page here. I could probably add AlfredG and 212.124.247.77 to the list too, but let's not get sidetracked... bobrayner (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2013 (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
  • These are from 8 years ago. Investigating seems pointless as they are already blocked. We stay backlogged, and this just isn't a good use of the limited resources. Also note, those were already reviewed by a CU while they were fresh. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
30 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

This IP, along with User:109.106.233.247, User:109.106.237.254,

Albania–Yugoslav border incident [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], and on Battle of Kosovo [103], [104], [105], [106], [107]. These are all closely related dynamic IPs with BeotelNet-ISP and all have edited articles frequented by Evlekis and where they actually use edit summaries the content is similar. If not sock then meat very likely given that Evlekis claims to have left en WP for good after his indef block. Checkuser not appropriate for privacy reasons, but perhaps a range block could be considered. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

of course, a far better idea. Thanks Dennis.
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
26 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets
  1. Zavtek's first article edit was changing Drenasi to Glogovac. Evlekis did the same here, here, and here.
  2. Both Zavtek and Evlekis make up spurious reasons to remove content based on this reliable source.
  3. Zavtek and Evlekis share the rather odd belief that Serbian placenames in Kosovo are "English", and thus both remove Albanian placenames. For instance, they both did the same on Hiking in Kosovo: [108] [109]. Zetatrans, another Evlekis sock, did the same: [110]. This kind of editing has happened on other pages, but Hiking in Kosovo is the best example as it's so obscure - the article history basically comprises the original article creator, followed by Evlekis socks and people reverting Evlekis socks.
  4. Zavtek wants to reinsert badly-sourced content; FkpCascais helps on talkpages. Evlekis wants to reinsert badly-sourced content; FkpCascais helps on talkpages.
  5. Here, Zavtek removes content based on this reliable source - a book which Evlekis had removed from many articles and declared "POV" &c.
  6. Zavtek's only edit to Herceg Novi is to change language. Evlekis' only edits to herceg Novi are to change languages. Zetatrans, another Evlekis sock, only edited Herceg Novi to change languages.
  7. Changing a BLP of a popstar from Kosovo to emphasise that they're actually from Serbia. Evlekis did the same thing on various articles.
  8. Pushing similar points on Kosovo's northern border with Serbia: [111] [112]
  9. Using Hashim Thaçi as coatrack for the Kosovo problem: [113] [114]
  10. Calling me "Rayner" is hardly harmful, but it's an uncommon habit... shared by Zavtek and Evlekis.
  11. Renaming municipalities in Kosovo; both Zavtek and Evlekis stick to the very specific wording that Serbian names are "consistent" with English names. (This is a way of inventing "English" placenames, because the actual placenames aren't compatible with the Serb nationalist perspective).

There is more behavioural evidence but I'm wary of giving a complete list of Evlekis' tells, for WP:BEANS purposes: I do not want to make it easier for future socks to evade scrutiny.

A checkuser would be stale, because checkuser only stores information for three months. The gap between Evlekis' last edit and Zavtek's first edit is exactly three months. Previously Evlekis socks tried to evade checkuser. Nonetheless, there is at least one other sleeper account, so I think a checkuser would be prudent. bobrayner (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It's nice that Evlekis/Zavtek has owned up, but I would still ask for a checkuser, which may help flush out a sleeper account. bobrayner (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bbb23,
Sorry for any ambiguity. As far as other socks are concerned, I'm fairly confident that I have found one more account used by Evlekis, but because steps have been taken to make the socking less obvious, I'm not yet 100% confident - and the last thing I'd want to do is falsely accuse somebody innocent. I am 100% confident that there is at least one sleeper in general.
I have also found a couple of IPs; again, going on previous editing patterns I am sure there are more IPs. Checkuser is unlikely to publically reveal those, but if somebody could block any IP socks for a little while, or revert them or whatever, that would be a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bobrayner, thanks for the explanation. Please list any IPs that are actively editing and whom you suspect of being socks, and some evidence in support of the suspicion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

From the accused party Zavtek

The admin to deal with this reported matter may save himself the trouble and effort of launching the full SP/I operation. I am indeed the same person who has edited from some (not all) of the accounts linked to User:Evlekis, and that in the eyes of adjudicators would be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or something in between. It was never my intention to be disruptive to the project nor to cause trouble for any users. I believe every single contribution has been in good faith though no doubt all will be reverted. This account may be blocked indefinitely. Zavtek (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: I had been reviewing the edits and evidence, but based on the admission I've indeffed Zavtek. I gave little weight to his statement that he was a sock of some of the accounts, and I've tagged him as a sock of Evlekis. I find the CU request a bit confusing. Bobrayner says there is "at least one other sleeper account", but I'm not sure why he thinks that. At the same time he also says that a CU may find a sleeper account, which is something different. At the same time, it's possible that Zavtek intentionally admitted to socking to avoid finding a sleeper. With all that in mind, I'm cynically going to endorse the CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
28 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Another Evlekis sock, the usual revert-stalking behaviour. [115] [116] [117] bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2013 (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

 Clerk note: Blocked for 10 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

29 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Admits here to wanting to end his feud with bobrayner, indicating he is Evl. Then goes on to edit the Hiking in Kosovo article, reinstating his previous sock's edits. Ishdarian 05:38, 29 November 2013 (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

 Clerk note: already indeffed. I changed tag and will close.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

02 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Another revert-stalking IP, plus some canvassing of potential allies, some fake reverts &c. - standard behaviour for Evlekis socks when he's angry. Since the IP is in a different range from other recent Evlekis IPs, I would ask for a checkuser to see if there are any other sleepers out there... bobrayner (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just by way of clarification....
This IP seems static enough that it was previously blocked by WilliamH during Evlekis' previous outburst in May 2013. Perhaps a slightly longer block would be a good idea. The telco is different to the one with provides Evlekis' other IPs (the other one offers much shorter leases hence there are more IPs from the other telco, but none of them are active right this moment, this is just for info). bobrayner (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2013 (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 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Rmhermen's talkpage has recently been a focus for Evlekis socks, and for somebody else's IP socks (which are all from BeotelNet). These two have cooperated elsewhere.
  • Now Eastern Promises arrives out of the blue and starts coaching the IP, showing far more detailed knowledge of wikipedia rules & editors than you'd expect from a new account.

With Evlekis, there are usually sleeper accounts, so I request a checkuser. bobrayner (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2013 (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
05 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Both impersonators of different accounts, and are pretty clearly being run by the same person - I went in and cleaned up the mess of Jrpr1966, so obviously I was their next target. I'm filing this for a couple of reasons; one being so that people are aware that we've got another one of these on the loose, and another being that I want to see if CU will turn up an existing master, or if there is a static IP that needs hardblocking for a little while. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:36, 5 December 2013 (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

information Administrator note I've already blocked the Luckeno94 account for harassment and username violations, however *switches admin hat for clerk hat*  Clerk endorsed since it doesn't look as though this guy has any plans to stop. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Hermanthebutler blocked and tagged. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


05 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Another impersonator account. I felt opening up a separate case would be better than mangling the other one that I opened this morning. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 5 December 2013 (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


07 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


TDL (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2013 (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
09 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

New editor turns up and starts making the same edits as Staro Gusle, an earlier Evlekis sock. Đakovica: [118] [119] Jakova: [120] [121] bobrayner (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2013 (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

information Administrator note This diff clinches it for me; blocked and tagged. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

After I made a few reverts of The Next Timelord on

Đakovica and Jakova, the first two IPs set up an AN3 case. Contrived cases on the edit-warring noticeboard are standard fare for Evlekis, and they repeat his tired old arguments. The latter IP just follows me to random articles and hits the revert button; another Evlekis habit. All three IPs geolocate in much the same way as prior Evlekis socks. Evlekis usually has sleeper accounts, but I'm not going to insist on checkuser right now. bobrayner (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Meanwhile, ممنون حسین has repeated the revert-stalking, plus tasteful Evlekis fare like this. Might be a good idea to revdel some of the impersonation-and-attack edits. bobrayner (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2013 (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
11 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

More IPs whose main purpose is to go through my contribs and revert everything. Plus stuff like this. bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various other IPs from today's outbreak have already been blocked. bobrayner (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2013 (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


11 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

The IPs are the usual revert-stalkers; Evlekis seems to have a lot of time to waste tonight. Create Account was created to give other other Evlekis socks something to revert; [122] and [123] but regardless of socking, we don't need work like this. bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2013 (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
12 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Given Evlekis' obsession with

TDL (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

Just for the sake of completeness, let's add these to the list too:

bobrayner (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All blocked indef and tagged. Closing for now.
22 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Check for sleepers, please. bobrayner (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2013 (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


23 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

IP's sole purpose is revert-stalking. IP is in same range (and same ISP) as this and this &c. bobrayner (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2013 (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
24 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Stormfool was in the habit of adding nonsense to articles, and then this was reverted by some of the other accounts (example), but because it looked like legit information the blanking was reverted until it was noticed to be false. User:Let me help you by blanking pages welcomed User:Budlight123 and although the three Bud accounts made no contributions, the logs show that User:Budlight123 created them. User:ΡΙΝΚ ΜΑΡ weighed in here (with their very first edit, seemingly knowledgeable about rollback) and here, and also removed an edit by Good thing of wp, in the same way the Stormfool edits were removed. All these accounts have been indef blocked but I've requested checkuser to check for sleepers. Thanks. –anemoneprojectors– 18:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • User has provided disruptive ambiance via multiple accounts, and has reacted to blocks with personal attacks. My thanks to anemoneprojectors for filing this report. JNW (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: I played a small part in this by indeffing two of the accounts. Although the pattern is not subtle, I'd feel more comfortable checking for sleepers, so I'm endorsing the CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stormfool, Tik tok tik tok, Let me help you by blanking pages, ΡΙΝΚ ΜΑΡ and Good thing of wp are  Confirmed Evlekis socks.
  • Budlight123, 1982budlight123 and 1982patrick123budlight are the same, of course, but are Red X Unrelated to Evlekis.
  • Unknownuserxo is also probably Red X Unrelated to Evlekis. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoRD, I see you've tagged the Evlekis socks, thanks. Is Unknownuser related to the Bud accounts? If not, I'm going to tag the Bud accounts separately, with Budlight123 being the master (the oldest of the three) and not tag Unknown (remove the current tag) before closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just realized I'll also have to do something about this being filed in the wrong case.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh...yeah, Unknown is unrelated to Bud. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had to change my Preferences to display seconds to determine that Budlight123 was the master. I've retagged that series of accounts but did not separate them out from the Evlekis SPI (the procedures don't address that kind of mix). I did use complex tags so that they pointed to this SPI. I will now close. The clerk who archives this can change the way I've done it if that's needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, since none of the Bud accounts have even made any edits, they should be unblocked and untagged, and perhaps a note should be left for them inquiring about the multiple accounts. Unknown is also not guilty of sockpuppetry, so they should be untagged as well. SPI clerks and regulars should be aware of Evlekis's spoofing tendencies. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the tag from Unknown. After all that trouble, I misread your note above. As for the Bud accounts, if no one does it before me, I'll take care of it tomorrow as I'm way too tired at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


25 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


This user claims to be Evlekis. On the Mike Smith history you can see that Master of Spoof inserted false info and used a malicious sock to revert the addition, hoping someone would add it back. These new socks operate on the same MO. Ishdarian 09:20, 25 December 2013 (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
29 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Claimed to be Evlekis here Flat Out let's discuss it 09:35, 29 December 2013 (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


29 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Self-identifies as SP of Evlekis in taunting edit. [126] The original edit was by IP 188.31.3.73.[127] and contains the harassing language toward another editor in the middle of the second graf.

Talk 07:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

(I submitted this last night but it was reverted by

Talk 16:13, 29 December 2013 (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
26 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Seems to be attacking admins he's bothered before. diff1, diff2 Bagatelle 00:05, 26 July 2014 (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

Kreswell (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to

They are also  Likely same as

They all geolocate to Evlekis, but the computer data have changed from the last time I dealt with him. IP ranges are vast as usual, thus I can't look for sleepers without additional data. Materialscientist (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

This account has already been blocked as a duck, but I'd like a CU to look for any sleepers given the history. ♥ Solarra ♥ • T ♀ C 02:24, 2 August 2014 (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

Immediate "sleepers" are already blocked. Remote sleepers are hard to trace because of the wide IP rang. Materialscientist (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Common vandalistic edits and editing behavior on

Talk 05:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

I've added the remainder of the vandal accounts which were the original cause of the first of the recent protection periods. The master here is Puertomiller since his account was created before Bucksham Co-operative and it was Puertomiller who introduced the concept of pork scratchings and Azerbaijani currency on the article. If you look at his edits, and those of the others, you'll find a chain. I ca only guess this is (or these are) somebody with an axe to grind with Sheffield Wednesday (such as Sheffield Utd supporters). --The Old Boy In Town (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. However, please note that

Talk 17:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Aha, well spotted. So Bucksham Co-operative was just "sleeping" in the meantime. I doubt it matters the ceremonial issue of naming a master, this is obviously one editor and half a dozen accounts. I suppose if any new vandals appear on Stevie May the best course of action (for admins) will be RBI. --The Old Boy In Town (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, only significant since it would help determine whether this SPI should be renamed.
Talk 19:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk endorsed for two reasons. First because Yaknow86 and ToXiiC SH33P are not as obvious. Second for sleepers. I suspect there another earlier account than the master's, although a CU may not turn that up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following are  Confirmed


The following are  Possible based on behaviour; technical information is  Inconclusive

no No comment on the IP addresses, per usual practice; however, the IP block was appropriate. Risker (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I blocked any account that wasn't already blocked. I tagged the confirmed accounts in that way. I tagged the three possible accounts as suspected because of inconclusive CU, but I'm comfortable blocking them on behavior.
@Risker: The Old Boy In Town claims he first created Bastard Race (talk · contribs) before creating the account he edited with. I think he may be lying as Old Boy was created on August 3, not August 4, and Bastard Race was indeed created on August 4, which is, of course, later. You didn't mention that account in the CU, so I'm not doing anything until I hear from you. I'm also keeping this open. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23..Hmm. Bastard Race did not come up on my checks, and in fact there's something a bit weird about the way that particular CU result is rendering - but yes. Bastard Race is definitely a sock. Risker (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now consulted with another checkuser, and there is something a bit buggy about the results, although they don't alter the finding involved. The Old Boy In Town was originally named Bastard Race and was renamed. Since Bastard Race was created on another project, we'll refer it for cross-wiki review. Risker (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I didn't see the rename, even though I was actually looking for it. In any event, DQ indeffed the account, so all I did was tag it. I confess I don't understand the cross-wiki part, but I can add that to my list.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23 September 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Tagged their userpage with a sock tag indicating they're a sock of User:Evlekis: [130]. INeverCry 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minutes after the indef block of Yoloswag420blazeitjoog (reported by me at
WP:DUCK. All of them have been blocked quite at the same time (today), style is the same. Sorry if my addition is a technical mistake, I didn't know where to add (date is the same). I've added "CUrequest" to case status. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Materialscientist: sorry for mistake, I was quite sure that they were the same vandal... I was surprised by the readiness of Unblocke. I've understood, he followed the block log. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:14, 23 September 2014 (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
18 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


There was an ongoing content dispute: User_talk:Vjmlhds#"Vacationland"? <--- ***replaced previous talk page wikilink w/ direct URL link to old revision***, Template_talk:Sandusky_Radio#Request move, and Talk:Firelands#Vacationland. During this dispute, I was reverted three times in fourteen minutes at the Firelands article- first by User:Vjmlhds,[131] then twice by User:Fruit is for life and for the articles also.[132][133] All of "Fruit's" edits occur between two of Vjmlhds' edits:

  1. Vjmlhds edits Firelands article (21:24 utc)
  2. All of "Fruit's" edits, including at Firelands (21:25 to 21:45 utc)
  3. Vjmlhds edits my talk page (21:52 utc)

That last edit from Vjmlhds (21:52 utc) -- his first after "Fruit" was indef blocked for a vandalism-only account (account creation at 21:40 utc & email/talk page access at 21:46 utc) -- was an assertion on my talk page that "Fruit" was not a sockpuppet (why would Vjmlhds defend himself when I hadn't accused him of anything?). This was followed by two more assertions.[134][135] Two of Vjmlhds' next three edits were on the talk pages of User:Ponyo (the admin who blocked "Fruit") and the "Fruit" user himself.[136][137]

Probably not enough for CheckUser, but enough to suspect there might be some

talk 14:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikilink to
talk 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Adding second suspected account. No apparent direct connection to
talk 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comments by other users

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

I can say with 100% clarity, sincerity, and honesty, that I am not the sock in question. I approached Levdr because I saw the comments made in Fruit's edit summary on the Firelands article, and (because Levdr and I have past history), I figured he'd assume it was me, so I wanted to try to reassure him before anything got out of hand. If you look at Fruit's edits, you'll see that he was just going to random pages, adding in nonsense.

I have only used 2 user names since joining Wikipedia in 2007 - Ohgltxg and Vjmlhds. Levdr and I had a dispute about the Firelands article over content, and you'll see all my edits were about adding information and trying to find sources to back up said information. What Fruit did was just go off the rails and add in nonsensical charts that had NOTHING to do with the article, and he made the same kind of edits on numerous other articles. I was trying to find sources to back up claims I had made about the Firleands region that in modern times, the area is called Vacationland. I had earlier come up with about 10 or 12 different references (all rejected by Levdr), and I was just trying to find more.

By all means use CheckUser, as that will verify that I am not Fruit. Ask yourself this...why would I spend all this time going through the effort to try to find sources and references to add legitimate information to an article, and then turn around and just add nonsense that had nothing to do with the article, and ON TOP OF THAT seemingly pick random articles out of a hat and do the same thing?

I knew Levdr would blame me for this, which is why I tried to head it off at the pass...obviously to no avail, as here we are. User:Vjmlhds (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that this will put an end to these accusations. It's become apparent that "Fruit" has been at it for awhile now, and that his sole purpose was to add nonsense to articles for his own amusement. As @
Levdr1lostpassword: knows, I periodically blank my talk page when it gets too big. Nothing sinister afoot, and this isn't anything new...not trying to hide anything (all anyone has to do is go through the edit history if they want to find something). Through sheer luck of the draw, "Fruit" happened to find his way onto an article that Levdr and I were having a dispute over. So once again, there's no connection between me and "Fruit", and the sooner this gets put to bed, the better. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Can we PLEASE wrap this up already? I think it's obvious by now that I'm in no way "Fruit"...never have been, never will be. Also, I'm becoming more convinced that @
personal attack? I do believe that is frowned upon around here - just saying. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I can end this right now...compare my edit history with Fruit's on Oct 3 (where he used the name "Fruit is good for life...") We made simultaneous edits on Oct 3 at 16:02 (UTC). He was vandalizing other editor's user pages, I was working on the article for Cleveland radio station WTAM. Oct 3 was Fruit's first go-around, he got blocked, came back under a new name, and raised hell again until he got blocked for a second time. Just my rotten luck he stumbled across the Firelands article which Levdr and I were in dispute. Fruit is clearly like the Joker from The Dark Knight - he just wanted to see the (Wiki) world burn. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Pete's sake...it doesn't take this long to diagnose Ebola. I gave you clear evidence that I'm not "Fruit", so let's wrap this thing up already. All this was much ado about nothing (at least on my end) because some clown stuck his face in an article for the sole purpose of causing trouble, and I'm getting blamed for it, and having undo accusations cast my way. C'mon...let's go. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TIME TO JUST COME RIGHT OUT WITH IT - THIS ACCUSATION IS NOTHING BUT BS! LEVDR HAS LONG HAD PERSONAL ISSUES WITH ME, AND THIS IS TAKING IT OVER THE LINE. HIS
BULLYING HAS GOT TO STOP. IF HE TAKES IT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK - TOO BAD, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST AS MUCH A PERSONAL ATTACK IF NOT MORE SO. I'M THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO CALM DOWN? WHY? I'M THE ACCUSED FOR GOD'S SAKE! WHY CAN'T THIS THING GET DONE ONCE AND FOR ALL TO SHOW THAT I'M INNOCENT AND THAT LEVDR MADE A BOGUS CLAIM? Vjmlhds (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]


LET'S GO...WHILE WE'RE YOUNG! IS EVERYBODY OUT FOR A SMOKE, OR WHAT?! Vjmlhds (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Administrator note CheckUser requested - Ignoring all the ranting above, I noticed the interleaved edits. Looking at these two diffs [138] and [139] give us a strong indication that this is the same person, but a CU to link the accounts would be beneficial. Dennis - 2¢ 02:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed I've been looking over the case the past few days and have been thinking things over. I think that a checkuser would be helpful in determining if we have a good hand/bad hand situation here. The Firelands article does not receive much editing traffic aside from Vjmlhds and Levdr1lostpassword, so it strikes me as very unlikely for a random vandal to stop by and vandalize the article. In addition, the timeline presented above makes the GH/BH scenario quite plausible. Finally, the recent comments made by Vjmlhds above seem to mirror the edit summary here. In both situations, the user seems to demonstrate an inability to keep cool when met with frustration. Mike V • Talk 02:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There may be possibly more but I will leave that to my colleagues to make a firm opinion.
-
Mailer Diablo 01:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  •  Clerk note: Materialscientist marked some of the above accounts as being socks of Evlekis about a week ago. I've asked Materialscientist to come here and comment on this connection — which should presumably lead to this SPI being refiled under Evlekis. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also first thought that the master is Stars of 85 or even some other prolific socker (forgot the name, doesn't matter now), but Stars of 85 left unambiguous technical evidence of Evlekis in some edits. Combined with some behavioral hints, geolocation and hopping pattern, I'm certain the group above is Evlekis. Materialscientist (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15 November 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

These accounts are all obviously the same person, but this needs to be documented somewhere because it took me a while to find the context from last month, so another admin would have no hope. I'd like a CU to flush out any sleepers (I'd be surprised if there weren't any, as they've been using autoconfirmed accounts to get round the semi-protection on the affected articles) and to assess whether there are any other rangeblocks that could be made. Note that I've hard-blocked 188.29.96.0/20, which I calculated based on a series of IP addresses this person used while logged out during their spree last month (I blocked it for a fortnight then and it seemed to have the desired effect, but I had to grant two IP block exemptions). 3АМ ХХХ is not the oldest, but I suspect the true master goes further back than these account; I'll leave it to the clerks to rename the case as appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added one more sock (3AM XXX), which looks like it's the same user as the sockmaster but isn't, because if you check their contributions you'll find that the sockmaster has made 30 edits while the sock I added has made 19. I haven't looked into why they seem to have the same name but don't, but it's probably a case of having two different Unicode codes for the blank space between "3AM" and "XXX", making the system treat them as different names. Thomas.W talk 20:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC) (Adding ping to HJ Mitchell). Thomas.W talk 21:00, 15 November 2014 (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


18 January 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
Rasztvan Evlekis
Tweaking Kosovo-related articles to pretend that places were actually part of Serbia [140] [141] Example
Targeting Pejë and the Rugova Canyon, in particular [142] [143] [144] [145]
Using a rapid succession of IPs from the same ISP in order to bypass
the three-revert rule
.		 [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] Example

Just to clarify - when I say "the same ISP", I mean that both Evlekis and Rasztvan use the same obscure English ISP. bobrayner (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Rasztvan is now blocked, presumably I can stop collecting diffs? :-) bobrayner (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2015 (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

Yep, that's him. There are other dead giveaways besides the edits (I'm more familiar with his vandalism sprees than his Balkan disruption), but WP:BEANS. Account indef'd, and I've made a rangeblock. Not that I expect that will keep him away for long. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

I'm not familiar with David Beals, but this seems to be a successor to the recently-blocked Hash Tag 444: Similar interest in "future memory" (check Hash Tag's deleted contribs). Also, repeating a Hash Tag 444 revert on a completely different article: [156] [157]. This new account was created shortly before Hash Tag got permablocked. bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

It is
definitely Hash Tag 444, but I'd have to deny any relation to Beals if it wasn't the CU that got Hash Tag 444 blocked. Even now, I find it hard to believe. Beals is just obsessed with anything with the initials D and B, ceiling fans, and imitating certain users -- he isn't high functioning enough to edit political articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Since Evlekis likes to revert-stalk my edits, Evlekis is a very good explanation for the behaviour of these two socks. I had only mentioned David Beals because that's how Hash Tag was written up... bobrayner (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. Not blaming you, just pointing out the... differences in capacity... between Evlekis and Beals. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • As the CheckUser who miss-tagged a number of Evlekis accounts as Beals', I can say that Evlekis is making a significant effort to impersonate Beals. Specifically, by making statements like this. Tiptoety talk 02:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
05 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


Behavioural evidence in account name chosen straight onto mass reverting my contributions once he was aware i'd clocked him. [[158]] Amortias (T)(C) 17:36, 5 June 2015 (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

27 July 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Multiple new nonsense articles and large pastes from single purpose accounts, attempting to disguise disruption. Such as

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

Following up on the tagging above. @Bbb23:, could you check the accounts below - seems there's another run. Kuru (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29 July 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

All added volumes iof text around the same time as well as copy and paste whole articles all including references to a non-existent Bucksham Cooperative together with nonsense text. Created articles are mostly re-named existing articles with junk text inserted. Several articles have already been deleted but other similar socks may exist  Velella  Velella Talk   22:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Diffes demonstrating this include this for Humble the Bumble], this page creation by Chad the Monkey, this talk page addition by .winterbritting. Apologies for delay in posting, The SPI was virtually the last edit yesterday - it was after midnight and today has been busy.[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I am unaffiliated to the above, but I welcome the prospect of a checkuser to clear my good name. Decent Dan Moore (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @
    WP:DUCK a definite sock of Max Pumpkin, adding Pumpkin's signature nonsense, as is Humble the Bumble. I'll check the others too later today, and will post some diffs then. Thomas.W talk 07:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I've asked
      WP:DUCK but also because all three of them even admit being Pumpkin socks in their edits. Since Decent Dan seems to believe that a CU won't be able to connect that account to previous socks they might have used a proxy for that one, but the behavioural evidence and what they say in their edits is more than enough to block them as Pumpkin-socks anyway... Thomas.W talk 10:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

adding hoax article which reference the bucksham cooperative, etc. Diffs include [159]  Velella  Velella Talk   13:20, 30 August 2015 (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

30 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Typical nonsense additions and refs to Bucksham etc. See [160]  Velella  Velella Talk   13:24, 30 August 2015 (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

01 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Brand new user whose first ever edit to Wikipedia was to jump directly into

WP:DUCK. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2015 (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

06 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Standard evidence here - as loud as a duck can quack  Velella  Velella Talk   12:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another from the end of August quacking loudly here  Velella  Velella Talk   12:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another here  Velella  Velella Talk   21:44, 6 September 2015 (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

11 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

A "new" editor that immediately started reverting me on articles that I had edited a few hours earlier, as several other "new" users that have been blocked as Evlekis socks have done lately. Their very first edit replaced the official 2011 Indian census data I had added, the most official data there is for demographics in India (as every Indian well knows), on Uttar Pradesh with older data, with the bogus reason "unsourced, unfounded", and after doing that and some gnoming on the same article they then continued to Demographics of Uttar Pradesh to do the same thing there. Continuing to revert me with similar bogus reasons even after I told them not to replace newer data with older data. The comments on their own talk page and on my talk page are also in typical Evlekis style. As for possibly being good faith edits, or at least edits by someone other than Evlekis, the two articles I was reverted on, like all other articles about Indian states, districts and cities, often see Indian editors trying to add fake data for religions, with Muslims inflating the number of Muslims at the expense of Hindus, and Hindus inflating the number of Hindus at the expense of everyone else, but since all Indians know that the official census data trump every other source they only change the numbers, leaving the reference alone, unlike this "new editor" who has repeatedly replaced the census reference with older and/or less reliable sources. In addition to that the only ones who would object to the new census data are Hindu activists, since the new data show that the number of Muslims in Uttar Pradesh increase faster than the number of Hindus, resulting in a higher percentage of Muslims and lower prcentage of Hindus in the 2011 data compared to the 2001 data. But a devout Hindu would never choose a user name like Chewers Meat, since devout Hindus are vegetarians for religious reasons, just like a devout Muslim never would choose a user name that includes the word "pork". And when you combine all of that the chance/risk of this being a new Evlekis sock is, IMHO, well over 50%. Thomas.W talk 10:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Please go ahead with the SPI, I am having nothing to hide from this false accusation. Furthermore I am not a Hindi or a follower of Hinduism, we are Christians, and no I am not vegetarian. Chewers Meat (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Same old same old as at here  Velella  Velella Talk   03:21, 14 September 2015 (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

18 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

See edit history, name Stephenb (Talk) 18:09, 18 September 2015 (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

21 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious sock, see this and this edit. A CU-check for sleepers is needed, as usual. Thomas.W talk 10:28, 21 September 2015 (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

24 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

This looks a lot like Evlekis, especially the bragging about how he "whips you all again" hidden down in the text of the articles that the sockpuppets reposted. This was originally listed under sockmaster Mendezes Cousins without CU, but I think a CU is in order. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2015 (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

28 December 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

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

18 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Three accounts which were created at roughly the same time (3rd, 7th, and 8th of this month). All have participated in a discussion about changing the spelling of "email" to "e-mail".

The behavioral evidence seems

fairly clear to me. The writing style is mostly the same, with changes needed as a thesaurus allows; the easiest way to ascertain that is perusing the move discussion where all three appear. Each account serves an almost cliche role in the discussion. one to propose (Henry Mazzer); one to support (The 321 kiddo) with a sufficiently distinct argument to avoid immediate suspicion, though I begin to feel The 321 kiddo shares Mazzers's unique (in that discussion) opinion that email is a linguistic abomination
; one (Reggie Wisecrack) to make the opposition look silly.

It's possible that the above could happen randomly, but I find it hard to believe that the activity/inactivty of these accounts lines up as it does unless there is one person operating them.

Timing
  • Henry Mazzer moves the page on the 16th, is reverted a few times and proposes the move on the talk page at 18:02. They make a few changes to their user page and stop editing at 18:10. They won't edit again until 19:24.
  • At 18:16, Reggie Wisecrack starts editing the Hillary Clinton email controversy article. It's their first edit of the day and their first on that article ever. At 18:25 RW posts a comment to the talk page supporting the current title, adding "down with the hyphen (everywhere I mean)". They won't edit again until 19:11.
  • Starting at 18:33 by supporting the move, The 321 kiddo edits six times on the subject (last before RW's post at 19:11 is 18:59, stopping at 19:14. That account won't edit for another hour.
  • At 19:24 starts Henry Mazzer editing again, leaving talk page messages, moving the page, etc., last editing at 19:49.

Also worth noting. 3 minutes after Henry Mazzer edited the article for the first/last time on the 10th, The 321 kiddo makes a minor edit. This is their first edit of the day and their first edit to that article ever. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a request for a CU to look for other potential socks, now that they've been blocked independently. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I've had my suspicions about 321 for a while. First edits date from 7th April. Within a few minutes of registering, there was this odd revert. Odd because it's a fairly obscure article, with no real rationale to revert that edit. Within a few days of editing, their edit summary states that I should start an SPI. I'd like to assume good faith on all new editors (really, I do mean that), but someone who's been here 5 minutes and knows about the SPI process doesn't feel right to me. Apologise if that's too vague, but sometimes a gut feeling is so often right. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you all
WP:DROP the stick. This is absurd. I have NEVER operated another account. Henry Mazzer (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note that Henry Mazzer has just been blocked. Ouch. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to do a check user on "The 321 kiddo". Some serious duck quackage right here, mimicking the actions for which "Henry Mazzer" was just blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is it Melanie, one reason I still think Reggie had the true intention and the other two were plain morons. But either way, I think someone "intended" to deceive you. This is one major scam artist which we now know by the "quacking". Roy Howard Mills (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh is that what the empty box is all over the place? Got it now. Curiously what was the image and why was it deleted? Roy Howard Mills (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And also edited the same now-deleted page as Mazzer, along with some other accounts I'll keep an eye on in case they're part of the same tag-team.  ‑ 
Iridescent 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) I can't remember exactly. It looked like a ransom note with some juvenile bullshit saying "You have been owned by the blah blah blah whatever collective." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No? How about this then? Roy Howard Mills (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all Mazzer reverting to Bemorang as far as I can see. By all means keep an eye on him, but if I blocked someone on the basis of evidence that shaky in the absence of CU data or a behavioural link, I'd quite rightly be desysopped. ‑ 
Iridescent 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

See deleted file. Evlekis?  —SMALLJIM  19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlement I think we have a self-confession here, looks like User:David Beals. Can't see any other master now. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would suggest that Reggie is part of an entirely different sockfarm, unrelated to Henry Mazzer. At least that's my bet. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Confirmed:
Roy Howard Mills (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Pork to the Arabs (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Frozenzon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Bap Bap Bap Dang (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Gavin the Good Man (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Bugglewurdlez (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Banana Nut 4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Στεφανος Οι Οι Οι (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Spiderman's Companion (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
The 321 kiddo (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Bemorang (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Reggie Wisecrack (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hoisho (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Adolf Schutzstaffel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hop Cruiser (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Henry Mazzer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Tom Tit Krapper (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hope a dope a quope (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I LOVE MY FILMS (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
CHELSEA FC FANCLUB (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Lizzard O Bill (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Stew Pidd Crow (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Chief of poems (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
TrackerMartin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Choicerpex (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hatchmight (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Bodypops (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Bentonwick (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
For some reason, it's always a little amusing when a sockpuppet participates in his or her own SPI. Mike V • Talk 19:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


21 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Based on the edit on MelanieN's talk page, this is an obvious sock. Creating a new SPI event as the previous was closed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user is now blocked. Interesting edit summary though: this is not the first time that a Henry Mazzer sock has made reference to David Beals. [163] David Beals has been banned since 2014 but was still socking as recently as last month. Could all these Henry Mazzer accounts be part of the David Beals sockfarm? --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2016 (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

  •  Confirmed and blocked:
8 all the food (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Dustcracker (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Chempor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Lawrence Duvail (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I just like to edit (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Intromocku (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Taxi Thomas M (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Trucker Marco (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Berry Travelway (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ozmanbukov (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Filly Gums (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Starcharter (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Gary McKelly (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Sweet Sound of Rain (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
General Brown Bear (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 20:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

28 April 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

This account was banned 3 weeks ago - not by me. Crops up tonight to attack me on talk page, I had removed TPA from a couple of Evlekis socks just previously. Nthep (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2016 (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

@Nthep: When you request a CU, please explain why. I assumed you wanted a sleeper check. I found no unblocked accounts. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Recreation of

(talk) 05:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Knilpertron, new user, first 2 contributions are playing with the csd on
(talk) 05:49, 15 August 2016 (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

07 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Very similar usernames. Only contributions are creation of promotional pages and vandalism. Passengerpigeon (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Please merge this case with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Beals as he has admitted to being a sock of David Beals in a previous edit. Passengerpigeon (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm pretty sure this is User:Evlekis. I've been seeing a lot of these socks lately, just yesterday there was User:Quack Jerk and User:87543blablabla. Sro23 (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Created Andrea Lambert, which randomly gives mention to recent sock Thomas Brownfingers W. Sro23 (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I am not a sockpuppet of any editor, the person you want to question is User:Thomas.W since he is the subject who commonly known as Brownfingers. I can imagine it is one of his alternative accounts. I am a legit editor. Man Wednesday (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Re-created

Charlotte Nast, which was first created by past sock User:Man Wednesday. this sentence, also "Maxwell Pumpkin" is mentioned on Maria Arpa, which they also created. Sro23 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

What is the relevance of Maxwell Pumpkin? Doesn't it say this in the source? McFaddon (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2016 (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

31 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Behavior very similar to other Evlekis socks, talk page likely to be abused after block (which just occured)

talk) 21:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

I'd suggest that all future Evlekis socks are not only blocked but instantly have TPA revoked as the inevitable behaviour, as demonstrated by this one, is to abuse various people on the sock talk page. Nthep (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wash_Bosch just got blocked for writing User X and User Y "Blank" each others "Blank" (I'm not going to repeat the text verbatim, as the text constitutes an attach on two editors, actually 3, one's an admin ). Wash Bosch just lost editing privelleges on his page, and now Bazsorc's page is showing up with exactly the same text, 1 minute later, same users. Obvious sock is obvious KoshVorlon 21:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bazsorc. GABgab 23:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

06 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

The contributions for each of these accounts matches the history of Evlekis' prior actions using socks (mainly, calling out specific users in harassment on their user talk page while block). -- Dane talk 06:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding CU Request to scan for sleepers. -- Dane talk 07:15, 6 January 2017 (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


06 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Claimed "Bucksham Operative" calling out various Wikipedia Admins and Vandal Fighters similarly to previous accounts as reported above. -- Dane talk 20:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May need another check for sleepers as these become active again. -- Dane talk 20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DoRD: Thank you, I will not request CU on the future ones. I wasn't sure on the helpfulness of CU in these cases for that reason of him using older already blocked accounts. -- Dane talk 21:20, 6 January 2017 (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

  • I've checked a couple of those, and yes, they're Evlekis, but CU isn't going to be helpful in finding others because he's taken to reactivating old, already blocked socks, and CU can't see them until after they edit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Its edit summary on this edit claims that "nobody stops Max Pumpkin from editing" and suggests that it's connected to the "Bucksham Co-operative". The account is blocked and talk page access was revoked. Stylez995 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more, from Jan. Please check for sleepers? Sro23 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2017 (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

20 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Concerns were mentioned to DeltaQuad regarding similar edits, who determined they were indeed related. Primefac (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2017 (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. Primefac (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Their edits on User talk:Thomas.W and the user name (compare User:Max Pumpkin) makes them an obvious sock. CU requested to check for sleepers (and a renewed range block, since the previous one seems to have expired...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:52, 16 April 2018 (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

No other accounts seen.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Yet another obvious Evlekis sock (see contributions). There might be sleepers, even though I don't think there are, but the IP-range might be a candidate for a range block, or, more probably, be an open proxy... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:58, 18 April 2018 (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

16 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious sock is obvious. Referring to me as "Brownfingers", as many previous socks have done, here, referring to User:Max Pumpkin, a previous Evlekis sock, in the edit summary here, and referring to "Bucksham Cooperative" (see archived reports) here. Plus the usual trolling, personal attacks etc. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:16, 16 November 2018 (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

30 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

[164]. ——SerialNumber54129 11:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ——SerialNumber54129 11:06, 30 November 2018 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Evlekis/Archive/1&oldid=1144945333"