Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ineedtostopforgetting

Ineedtostopforgetting (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:


11 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Kazakhstani IP and new account popping up to partially restore a previous sock edit on that page, with the usual swing towards highlighting Singapore and specifically the aim of saying companies are "Singaporean". Note edit summaries are unused or misleading with regards to this intent in both original sock and new sock edits, with edit summaries used to hide the desired change behind innocuous edits. See [1][2][3] for a similar examples, with this one also showing the deliberately innocuous edit summary. CMD (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deactivating CU request, as it was carried out by CaptainEek in the #21 September 2021 section above. CMD (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Can't we just
    WP:DENY at this point and block as obvious socks? It's not like they're being subtle or anything. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

29 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Another extended duck trying keeping quite low under the radar, in the Ekuftle (talk · contribs) vein. The first edit was to Singaporean patriotic music, which had the day before been given that title by a previous sock (following another sock a couple of weeks earlier). Soon after they were on the Singapore Covid page, editing to put Singapore at the top of a ranking. A later edit to Forrest Li was to replace "Chinese-Singaporean" with just "Singaporean", similar to edits from other socks to Jet Li([4][5][6]). An edit along the same theme was here, removing mention of Chinese origin of Singaporean athletes. A later edit to table tennis showed the classic insertion of Singapore under a minor tag.

Another area of obvious duckery is the Grab article, again the stomping ground of many former socks, where the typical removal of Malaysia and promotion of Singapore occurred. They then went on to reversion guard the article ([7][8]) in ways that further this POV, a behaviour previously seen on other articles (eg. Jajangmyeon [9][10][11][12]). (Many of the IP edits on the Grab article also resemble this user, so they're probably using a named account to maintain IP edits, as the ShelteredCook (talk · contribs) account was used for.) Linking to those Jajangmyeon edits to push Chinese influence on Korean food, Yuorvee similarly rved to maintain the assertion of Chinese influence on Korean clothes. I note here as well that they have returned to early use of Twinkle, a previously strong hallmark that was dropped for awhile but is back.

Other typical edits include this one, where a misleading edit summary and minor tag are used to insert various mentions of Singapore and gain a removal of a mention of Malaysia to boot, as well as removing "Southeast Asia" which is another classic hallmark (see mention in 02 August 2021 case for example). This edit removes mention of South Korea and Taiwan, again under usual misleading canned edit summary. On the Made in Taiwan page, they joined an edit war to restore the edits of the Incegnetty sock. On the Marina Bay Sands article, they made a large edit that restored much in spirit of previous sock edits (eg. removing/downplaying ownership by Las Vegas Sands, removing/downplaying reasons for delay in opening, removing mention of Crystal pavilion legal dispute, etc.). The account is also even being used to continue the war with the Awanama farm (see mentions of Awanama in archives). CMD (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that like Ekuftle this account decided to go on a rampage after the report here. Courtesy ping to blocking admin Ymblanter. CMD (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Account is already indeffed for vandalism. I do think it's them but CU will probably be a waste of time due to the extensive proxy use. No tags per DENY. Closing. Spicy (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


The Ultraliezoku4 account is new and completely dedicated to putting a negative slant on South Korean topics, which is a favourite pasttime of this farm. This edit, which simply changes an "unlikely" to a "likely", is typical trolling vandalism which is NOTHERE by itself, and reminiscent of previous socks like this edit which changed "tightened" to "relaxed". The farm has shown previous interest in emphasising chaebols. This Ultra edit on the Korean Wave page removes a bunch of text (and in this case even references) under the canned "general fixes and trimming" edit summary, see similar in this edit focused on removing mentions of Korea with summary "c/e, trim unsourced", this edit which removed mention of Korean Wave under "further c/e, trim more OR/uncited", and this edit which both added to emphasise chaebols and removed sources which talk about the Korean Wave under edit summary "condense and trim excessive citations". Other edits all follow the similar theme of existing just to write with a certain slant on South Korea.

Palipali1994 is a more focused account, looking only at Incheon International Airport (which is in South Korea). Their main edit is made to remove positive information, and matches exactly in parts an edit on the same page by a previous sock. The clarification needed spanning of an entire paragraph has also been used by another recent sock, here. CMD (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Blocked without tags, threw in Otterslort (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for free. Not closing quite yet, there's something I want to follow up on. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blablubbs is there something left for CU to do here? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: Not quite sure yet, haven't had time to revisit: There's something fishy about the SPI report Otterslort filed – that is, I think they might be edit-warring with themselves at [13] (Yuorvee is most likely INTSF, 114.152.95.167 is a type of proxy they've used before). Though checking them can't hurt either way; worst case scenario is that whoever does so gets to make a bunch of proxyblocks. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I talked to my sales manager, and it turns out we're having an unadvertised special on CU today, so I was able to get you some checks at a good price. I looked at Ultraliezoku4 and Palipali1994 from today and Yuorvee and CrownTimothy from the archives. As Spicy guessed on 29 October 2021, there is some proxy use, but at least one of the accounts appears to be proxy-free. IP addresses are around the world, but mostly localized for each account. User agents are all very common ones. So, plus or minus how much faith you put in our proxy detection tools, I'd have to call all of those four  Inconclusive  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation on the available technical evidence. If you want me to do some more digging, ping me, but be warned; my sales manager says I'll need to charge you full price for the extras. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Blablubbs: I'm going to go ahead and close this. Feel free to reopen it if there's more you wanted to do here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • No evidence presented, and the IP hasn't edited in 10 days anyway, so closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Precocious user continuing the arguments of other socks. Their first edit was about a positive-sounding note on the US, not unique, but in line with previous anti-americanism. The next edits were to the Chai Vang article, including this one which added a See also (to an article previously edited by past socks), this See also was later restored by the Otterslort sock account. Most recently, they continued the campaign of yourvee against Robepang, through filing an AN/EW on the Milo Dinosaur page despite no previous interaction. They had also not edited the Milo Dinosaur page before, but previous socks had. The recent edit to prompt this was Robepang reverting this proxy IP, which is quite obviously INTSF as well with usual addition of Singapore and removal of Malaysia. They also engaged in such IP restoration by reverting back in this IP edit which both added a copyrighted image (INTSF socks have a long history of uploading copyrighted images with one account and adding them to en.wiki with another) and early links to [[National Stadium, Singapore|National Stadium]] and [[Jalan Besar Stadium]], two pages with extensive editing from previous socks. The account also shows the usual twinkle reversion behaviour (see yuorvee and otterslort). CMD (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I endorse this report, textbook INSTF with his childish jealousy, not willing to accept Malaysia's superiority in many aspects over Singapore. CozertMYR (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New account knowing how to find their way to this page, adept at Wiki-lawyering, accusing established users of being INSTF. Clearly trolling. Seloloving (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Careful now with the aspersions. We had "
PengaYue (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Right. I decline to withdraw my allegation. We all clearly know what "established users" mean in this manner and I have better things to do on a Sunday than hang out in a sock drawer. Seloloving (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using the last day of the week to refuse any elaboration as to what "established users" means is just faltering. We are, after all, all here on a Sunday, aren't we? And that includes you. If you had "better things to do" aside from defending sockpuppets, you wouldn't have been here in the first place.
PengaYue (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
In reverting PengaYue's edits, I knowingly crossed the three-revert rule here. Any admin is free to examine my conduct and impose sanctions as necessary. Seloloving (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Account blocked, closing. Spicy (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets



New accounts with vast knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, Twinkle, and accusing a user 1 2 I shall not name on this board of being a INSTF sockpuppet without merit. Per

WP:DENY. Seloloving (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

PixelArtLover has left a message on my talkpage. Clearly wanting to continue the arguments by PengaYue and CozertMYR. Per
WP:DENY. Seloloving (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

Well, this feels in line with the usual reaction to a report here. Obvious trolling. CMD (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked both because they're clearly NOTHERE, also semi'd this page. I don't do SPI stuff so IDK what else to do. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I requested for Enterprisey's assistance off-Wiki. Another admin is free to examine my reasons for expediting a block on these two accounts by requesting the intervention. Seloloving (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Logging for the record, checked in relation to filing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sapah3 (all previous filers were socks, unsure how no one noticed this.) ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 22:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

12 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Submitted a GAN on Jewel Changi Airport in their first first few edits, which was pushed by Feinoa, a sock of INTSF. Didn't think much of it as the GAN was revert quickly, however what triggered a look again was possible UPE behaviour by the editor. – robertsky (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added potential IPs used by sockmaster. 182.220.22.133 (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional context and information originally posted at COIN:

This is more of a potential crosswiki abuse. Axe Brand article was created on 11 Nov by Johnshakur, and images (logo and other copyrighted images) were uploaded by c:User:Aong Leran (not registered on enwiki) on the same day in commons. Images added on the article by Johnshakur on the same day. For Sunshine Bakeries, the article was created on 24 Oct by Johnshakur, and images (logo and product images) were uploaded by c:User:Noor Tan Zak (not registered on enwiki) on the same day in commons. Images added on the article by Johnshakur on the same day. Language and content on both articles seems to be promotional, and indicative of that Johnshakur account may be a UPE. Noor Tan Zak and Aong Leran aren't registered on this wiki, however notification will be sent to the users on their Talk pages here on enwiki, and crossposted in commons.

Ymblanter later reflected that c:User:Noor Tan Zak has been determined to be a sock of INTSF in commons. as well. – robertsky (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

c:User:Aong Leran has been identified as sock of INTSF in commons as well. – robertsky (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

The Sunshine Bakeries article definitely reads like INTSF work, like this one. CMD (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Offwiki and editing via mobile. Please block the ip editor on my talkpage. Thanks. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justanothersgwikieditor: Done. Confirmed proxy. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Socks doing sock things --Blablubbs (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Added Sgpolitics2021 and Sgweirdo. First of all, note both accounts starting with "sg". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skillrexrex (talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sgpolitics2021 is a brand new already making major edits to Singaporean politicians, similar to some INSTF socks – 1 2 and 3.
  • Sgweirdo has the habitual behaviour of removing translations of Singapore's other official languages of Chinese, Malay and Tamil, leaving only English instead.sock, sock, Sgweirdo, Sgweirdo, Sgweirdo, Sgweirdo (many more examples). Sometimes they would try to place and emphasis on Chinese instead, which is very INSTF-like example (Did it twice and was reverted twice by Seloloving). They also have the same interests in football as well as other East Asian countries per LTA's behaviour page. Skillrexrex (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange that the first edit of the user above should be to an SPI and display advanced knowledge of the sockmaster. JavaHurricane 10:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: I just removed some trolling here and blocked some proxies engaged in said trolling. Semiprotected the case page for a couple of months as well. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - I think that all the cases currently on here (excluding the 19th) need checking. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extensive proxy use and very common user agent adds up to  Inconclusive  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked, tagged suspected, closing. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Untagged. Tagging is a force of habit. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Various single-use/one-off sock accounts dedicated to cross-wiki upload of sock files on commons similar to case described by RoySmith above (see global use for 1 and 2 for the most widespread crosswikiing). Those familiar with this user will note some other obvious traits, but for simplicity just listing the diff and the image.

List

CMD (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk endorsed - worth a check. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much the same as 12 November 2021. Based on the raw CU data, I'd have to call it  Inconclusive Behavioural evidence needs evaluation, but in reality I don't think any of the data can be trusted due to extensive proxy use. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Blocked without tags. Closing. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)  Blocked without tags. Closing. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Combative over Singapore national football team. While initially removing unsourced content based on no citation here, it is to be noted an unsourced but favorable event is left in the article. Subsequently removed history with cited sources here. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Check declined – Checkusers will not link accounts to IPs, per the privacy policy. The /40 has been rangeblocked for evasion, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Lantan RM, a single-use account started everything by altering references from the page [14] and forcing other editors to use Singaporean English, typical behaviour of INTSF. After that IpohLang and PeterRang suddenly show support to Lantan RM's edit in [15]] and [16]. Both accounts also showed support of known INTSF sock puppets before in [17] - kaya toast, [18] - Milo dinosaur and [19] - Kopi (drink). Robepang (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

All three accounts have hallmark INTSF traits. Lantan RM is the classic one-off with the usual lying and focus, the other two are continuing old feuds. On a related note, can an admin please revdel this summary. (Part of an IP group that is becoming involved in this, including recently on my talkpage, possibly one of the feuds or possibly a deliberate bad hand.) CMD (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk endorsed - worth a check TheSandDoctor Talk 19:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I shared your optimism :-)  Inconclusive Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. On the other hand, it's worth noting that every single account from {12,13,26} November is using the same highly common UA. If you walk down a street and somebody looks totally average, you don't notice them. If everybody looks totally average in exactly the same way, you gotta wonder if they all bought their disguises from the same place. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: What can I say? I try to be an optimist. Shame that some of these masters don't make it easy for us, eh? And yes, if everyone looked exactly the same in the same ways I, too, would be wondering where they got that disguise or if I was dreaming. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked without tags Closing. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Another account created to push weird country vendettas, like the Ultraliezoku account. Opened with this edit on the topic of Pinoy Baiting with typical misleading summary. The edit also had the usual removing of maintenance templates on topics they like, the addition of a bunch of see alsos, and some

other tells. The second edit of the account was to create the talkpage of this article, which means little on its own but is noticeable as INTSF really likes creating talkpages (most are deleted, but some still hanging around from various accounts include [20][21][22]).

A few weeks after this, the account reactivated to do a series of rapid edits that were just enough to get autoconfirmed, in order to create Malaysia and the apartheid analogy. Keen observers will notice the classic INTSF trait of the sources having little to do with the text at hand, despite superficial similarities (look no further than the first paragraph of the lead and the first paragraph of the body). The sidebar is one previously edited by another sock, and the See alsos include articles variously targeted by previous socks around the same time period (such as this proxy (in addition to another recent one-off acount) and this edit (which you may note also has the template removal and see also additions including White Supremacy, which was used on the created page)) CMD (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CU data is suggestive, but not conclusive; combined with behavioural evaluation, I'm convinced. Blocking without tags. Girth Summit (blether) 17:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Another obvious cluster of single-focus accounts in the usual South Korean stomping grounds. Usual pattern of terrible edit summaries, uploading copyrighted photos, and getting into edit wars. Bishibitsu has already been globally locked due to CU on commons, including here for completeness. CMD (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

As of December 10th, 2021, the master was locked, so wouldn't it also be fair to file global lock requests on the newer socks from now on? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk endorsed - based on 8 December, I doubt that this will be conclusive but still worth a check per that same day. RoySmith / Girth Summit do they (the named accounts) all look the same (in a rather conspicuous manner) again? TheSandDoctor Talk 07:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Girth Summit (blether) 11:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woo Jeein is stale, but all of the other accounts listed above here that look conspicuously similar to the previous ones. I'll add Cockerado to that list. Based partly on the CU results, and partly on behaviour, I'm blocking all of these with the exception of Woo Jeein - if that account starts editing again, we can revisit. No comment on the IPs, naturally. Will also request locks. Girth Summit (blether) 11:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

24 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Recent account in the usual areas. First day of activity includes this one with the usual canned and misleading edit summary, with the usual distaste for the term "Southeast Asia" where possible and appending it to "East Asia" where possible (see 29 October 2021 for similar). Even adds a small unsourced paragraph on Singapore! That day also saw an edit to an article on racist terms (a standard topic, like here) which hid edits behind a revert (and the page was previously edited by the same editor). The latest edit was to make multiple links to

Income inequality in South Korea, which is one of the recent fork attempts for the case discussed on 17 December 2021. CMD (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

  • I wasn't aware that on Squid Game, the article which was previously linked was just a redirect in itself. The page was not created by me but by "Jarble" on 17 December. It briefly became a standalone article a few days later, which was assumed by me as being a different article when I viewed it. You were right to revert me there but I'm not sure as to how that connects me as being a sock.
  • To address Asian Americans, the "Even adds a small unsourced paragraph on Singapore!" is not true, the sentence was already there – last diff before my edit – go on "Demographics". I merely moved the sentence. Also, I'm not sure how you came to the assumption that I'm a person who has a "usual distaste" for Southeast Asia, because on the contrary, I added more of that term on the very diff you provided, whereby I specifically added the usage of the term "Asian" by the United States Census Bureau as being people from East, Southeast and South Asia, which wasn't there before. GreenRedBlueX (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

07 January 2022

Please move this semi-protected request page to the Wikipedia namespace. Thanks. 174.89.100.68 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

Unknown but possibly be operated by the same person. I do not know at the moment it’s coming from Singapore or not. Close if not found. 174.89.100.68 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

No opinion on Accrmecru. Shunwound is obviously linked to some other accounts from that time ([23][24]), but unsure if it's this user.

FiveSevenXE however is this farm, and was one of the harassment accounts previously reported on 08 May 2021 that was not blocked. I added Surestam above, who has also reactivated. Probably a good idea to finally block the lot. Pinging Blablubbs who was involved in that report. CMD (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz and RoySmith: Usual technical finding given proxying, but while they may be technically unrelated, both FiveSevenXE and Surestam are not unrelated to this case. As with other accounts from the early May period, they were created to harass me (and indeed in this case these two both made the exact same edit, with Surestam making far more as well). The sleeper account activation is not a new pattern (and even activating accounts previously left unblocked here is not new). The FiveSevenXE account has already used its autoconfirmed status to begin harassing Dosafrog. CMD (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I should clarify. In a CU context, "unrelated" is shorthand for "no overlap of the technical data, i.e. IP addresses and browser user agent strings". Even when it's not explicitly stated, there's always an implicit assumption that the CU data could be misleading or just plain wrong, and behavioral evidence needs to be considered. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roy, I was thrown off by the full "Unrelated to this case", amid mild frustration that these weren't blocked upon the first SPI leaving them to resume harassment. If unrelated is just about the CU data, then that's expected for this case. CMD (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - based on previous reports typically finding sleepers, requesting CU. It is worthwhile with this one. TheSandDoctor Talk 15:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving for a full check by another CU. What I found is as follows:
  • These two accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • FiveSevenXE is probably using a VPN
  • Surestam does not seem to be using a VPN.
  • All four accounts seem to be Red X Unrelated to this case. This may be due to proxy / VPN usage. My unrelated result should be taken as a non-final initial finding. Another CU may find a stronger link, and if they do that's what should be used. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I poked around a bit, and agree with everything Dreamy said. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Girth Summit: What are your thoughts? Look conspicuously similar like the others or do these feel different? --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time for a proper look now (I really ought to be asleep by now...), I'll take a look tomorrow. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 00:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started taking a look into this, and there is definitely something fishy going on with the IP range used by the two confirmed accounts - RoySmith, Dreamy Jazz, I've just e-mailed you with some thoughts, along with GeneralNotability who has blocked accounts on that range before as part of a separate SPI case. I'll come back round to looking properly at the other two accounts later, I'm out of time now. Girth Summit (blether) 09:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - I've looked again at the data, and the editing, and convinced about FiveSevenXE and Surestam - I can't say that they're confirmed, but they do share the hallmarks of the previous accounts, and pattern of editing is highly suspect. Blocking without tags, will request locks. I am convinced that the other two accounts are unrelated to this case, but I believe they are part of something else - I'm not taking any action at the time being until I've had more input from people I've e-mailed. Girth Summit (blether) 15:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two unblocked accounts are indeed part of something else - they're not part of this case, and are being dealt with by another CU. Closing. Girth Summit (blether) 06:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 January 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Second round, unclear if they are connected with the master or not. As with the last one, close of not found. 76.68.77.234 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

If these are sock they are probably part of the 'Taiwan group' that was in the previous request. I don't think they're INTSF at the moment, but they are a farm, and one which I think would be more conducive to CU training than INTSF socks. (Although if anyone wants an INTSF report for training, let me know and I can throw one together.) CMD (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - based on previous reports typically finding sleepers, requesting CU. It is worthwhile with this one. Most likely it will be inconclusive, but pinging CUs familiar as familiarity has proven key. @Girth Summit, Dreamy Jazz, and RoySmith: TheSandDoctor Talk 23:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking about leaving this one for TonyBallioni to tackle on the upcoming CU training course... Girth Summit (blether) 00:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold - Thanks, GS. On hold for now. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm obviously not a CU, but I am fairly familiar with INTSF – there is extensive use of open proxies here (both logged in and logged out), so just a quick note that this one might not be as straightforward for training as other cases. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Returning to the queue. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - This was endorsed before it was returned to the queue, so re-endorsing. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the surface, Afsdfdjsaid and Cfls are Red X Unrelated to each other or any accounts in the archive that I looked at (or the notes in cuwiki). But, there's so much proxying going on, I suspect none of the data can be trusted, so  Inconclusive Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. My advice to admins is that if there's harassment or other types of personal abuse going on, just get aggressive about blocking based on the disruptive behavior. Don't wait for SPI to sit on it for a while and then be unable to do anything anyway. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The named accounts don't look like INTSF to me and besides having gibberish usernames and an interest in China, they don't look too much like each other either (different edit summary patterns and types of edits). Not going to bother with an IP that hasn't edited since 2020. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 February 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

User making edits on articles pertaining to South Korea and Singapore, which the sockpuppets of this user have been shown to be the most active. History of biased editing that is consistent with other sockpuppets that change factual contents in a biased, subtle way with edit summaries that pertain to completely different things. edit1 edit2. The other sockpuppets that have been blocked have made very similar edits in the past such as this where on the edit summary they state that they are "removing excess citations" but add new biased statements in the lead section of the article. Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This does look like them. Note INTSF previously inserted themselves into an edit war to rv Qwertyasdf0192363, likely linked to reaching back one month to rv them. CMD (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also this socking. CMD (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good spot. But I would also bet a significant sum that Qwertyasdf0192363 is one of Ineedtostopforgetting sockmaster sparring partners rather than a legitimate user. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith accusation with no evidence from the user above. There is not a single overlap between my edit histories that of the sockmaster. Note that this user has defended INTSF's POV edits that were ultimately reverted for
WP:CIV by not contributing to discussions but making uncivil comments like "bashing [your] head." Also note: "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed" stated on the group notice of this page. Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

18 February 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Editing history show a sudden jump from draft to direct attack on Seloloving's talk page with the usual accusations typical of INTSF. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

@Justanothersgwikieditor: Re this edit summary, I would invite you to quickly peruse my talkpage history. Not sure if the CU will show anything, but it's never been a one-off. CMD (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis, while I agree with you, without other evidence of other editors, I think we can skip the CU for the time being! Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I can't say what's going on here but all of these throwaway accounts are  Technically indistinguishable:
Editor Interaction Analyser (Slater Downer, Elknola Lee Ning Guangyao, Zelensky911, Liana Salgado, Petraeus Henderson, Jessica Thomas Ayato, Kern Mair, Auranori Himegimi, Joseph J. Fitzpatrick, Georgius Rogers, B0nk-fraud53, Noriaki Nora, Elisa Elvin Hu, Lee Ailieism Lillian, Auranori Himegimi, Deva Dove, Psx13, Julie Pearl Zhu, Liming Michiaki, THAAD American dad)
All of these accounts are using the same (admittedly common) device on one single static IP, which does not appear to be a proxy. These are the only accounts to have edited on this IP within the retention window, and as far as I can tell none have ever edited from a different connection, although I did not check them all. Many of these exhibit behaviours described on the LTA page, and their common geographical interests cannot be explained by the IP's location. Others are straight vandal accounts, some of which have already been blocked. If proxy geolocation is to be believed then these accounts are editing from a different continent from the proxies identified below, but that's still an inconclusive result.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23 February 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Account created to continue a particular campaign of Otterslort. Also not done with this feud apparently. CMD (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding DorsweilerTLN, quacking and following my contribs as usual. CMD (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Inconclusive, both accounts are using proxies.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked without tags, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious duck Razali Osman account first edited in November 2021. The second edit (aside from creating user and talkpage) was to create an SPI, something this user has done before. The next edit was to restore an edit from a quackers proxy IP with a typical canned edit summary. Later edits are all the usual guff. The usual fake revert edit summary to hide changes, restoring IPs, returning to well trodden ground, removing Malaysia from things, supporting more quack IPs, "East and Southeast Asia" is back, etc. etc.

Requesting CU just in case, but you know how it is. CMD (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Strawocolte, which was created to join the edit war including the Razali Osman account on the Skylines article. The same story applies to BellconGrass, Ecwanis, and Writehe, although on different articles. CMD (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Razali Osman and Strawocolte are  Inconclusive due to proxy use. The others are stale.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two most recent accounts are already blocked. The others are so old, it doesn't seem worth worrying about them. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

SReader65 went straight to another user requesting help about blocked socks after creating account. I welcomed SReader65 after SReader65 posted in Wikiproject Singapore and SReader65 started on his quest about blocked socks again. This is behaviorally similar to Ineedtostopforgetting. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 April 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual precocious duck. First edit was to blank a section about Taiwan, second edit used a lie in an edit summary to get a Singapore picture in (the picture is of one of the building articles this user likes, and has edited the page of) while also removing mention of Taiwan, and other edits are used to remove perceived negatives about Singapore. As is common, large twinkle use is used to hide these edits among other contibutions (most recent example). Not requesting a CU, but sometimes they find sleepers so up to CU discretion. CMD (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - worth a CU sleeper check as always with this one. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  No sleepers
    immediately visible Salvio 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • With that editing pattern + proxy use, they're basically guaranteed to be INTSF.  Blocked without tags, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 May 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Account created last year and did some of the usual reverting IPs here and there (by just scrolling through recent changes apparently) and reached autoconfirmed. First real edit was to add stuff about Singapore to Genshin Impact, which for the record is a topic/article previous socks have gone through before. Also used the autoconfirmed to create Economic disparity in South Korea, which is a recreation of Wealth inequality in South Korea which was an attempt to fork off sock edits to Economic inequality in South Korea. CMD (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - behavioural evidence seems convincing enough; please indef the sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked without tags, closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

30 May 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

IP spree for the past couple of days over a range of articles, bringing this one here because it is a new named account whose edit follows two proxy IPs in doing a long-reach all the way back to a 2021 edit, although these new edits add even more Singapore of course. CMD (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

30 May 2022 (2)

Suspected sockpuppets

Feret500, from the 08 May 2021 case has been reactivated for abuse and disruption. Could I please ask again that these accounts from the old reports be finally blocked. Leaving them unblocked is just a bizarre enablement of abuse.

Dignidadnog I apparently did not report at the time they popped up, they were also reactivated for abuse. With that in mind, I am reporting Mawster21 for the first time here, as I did not report them at the time either. CMD (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now BlueWorme from the 8 May 2021 report and Bersablert who was mentioned in both the 02 April 2021 report and the 09 May 2021 report are back. Going to make some hopeful pings because this is dumb and easily solvable. @Sdrqaz, Favonian, Johnuniq, and RoySmith:. CMD (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Thinking templates are a comment on the content of an article rather than its quality is a really typical pattern for this user (as is just randomly throwing them around). Also [25][26][27]. CMD (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I'm not going to block Mawster21 without more information. Certain things say to me that they may be unrelated. Leaving open to revisit the earlier reports mentioned above. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • All accounts besides Mawster21 have been indeffed. I'm not confident enough to endorse a block on Mawster21 based on their single edit - it's suspicious, but it could be another POV pusher. (I interpret zzuuzz's comment as meaning that he ran a check.) Feel free to re-report this account if more evidence comes to light. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Classic INTSF sock, began with a targeted and disruptive Singapore edit[28] before lying dormant for nearly a year until earlier today when they returned with a vengeance to do the typical pattern of disruption[29][30][31] and harassment[32][33]. Twinkle use also overlaps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This is 100% for a number of aspects, from the initial edit to the rush to autoconfirmed to the harassment. It is worth noting here that yesterday WastefieldX was blocked, along with some IPs. (Others were also active but have not been blocked [34][35][36]. This is not a comprehensive list, they're all one-off proxies used to avoid detection.) CMD (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

21 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

New one-off sock, restoring edits by Telsho and Otterslort. CMD (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

24 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Peter Hannick attempted to edit Racism in Canada to increase the prominence of "Maplewashing". A topic which was formerly it's own article. That former article was written and maintained by Telsho, a sock of Ineedtostopforegetting. See user history [37]

Peter Hannick regurgitated similar edits that were made by anonymous IP Addresses from Asia. First in December and then in May (the December edits occured right after "Maplewashing" was merged into "Racism in Canada") One edit from December: [38]. Edit from May [39]. First edit from Peter Hannick on topic, restoring edit from May [40]

Peter Hannick had a very short edit history with no history of prior engagement on topic when he made these edits.

Also note that Ineedtostopforegetting and it's socks appear to be based in Eastern Asia and have a history of editing articles relating to Asian topics. Both of the aforementioned IP's that Peter Hannick supported were from Asia. Additionally Peter Hannick himself has delved into edits relating to Asia in his very short edit history, see here [41], [42], and [43]. CASalt (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - the behavioural evidence is convincing - please indef the sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked without tags, Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

28 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Typical INTSF attack accounts, only relations between the edits is that they are reverts of my work and within INTSF's favored topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

15 July 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

New account demonstrating the usual maturity. Proxy IPs included for reference. CMD (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Account  Blocked without tags as suspected sock + username vio.  Proxy blocked × 2. Closing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

24 September 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Logging an older sock that was missed last year. A standard rapid autoconfirmation followed by moving to target article. In this case restoring older edits (eg. [44], [45]) with the usual removal of non-English names and puffery. CMD (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: The history of this case, including the entry immediately below, indicates a block would indeed accomplish something, but as noted it is being filed mostly to log it for later when it inevitably uses its lack of being blocked to cause disruption. CMD (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • With 10+ months of inactivity, the account is clearly no longer in use, so a block wouldn't accomplish much here, even if this turns out to be a sockpuppet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

This account was first used in November 2021 to tag-team edit war at Block (Internet). That edit speaks for itself, but here is the original Govercon edit from way back when. They were reactivated a month ago to recreate this page, their latest forking of a South Korean inequality page. One previous example is Income inequality in South Korea, which was discussed in the 24 December 2021 case. The accompanying linker IP in this case, 175.114.237.193, has already been blocked. CMD (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

During cleanup today I noticed this old sock account. Usual hiding of desired edit among reverts and vaguely competent-looking stuff. Filing/logging here, although noting this account is inactive so this can be closed/archived. CMD (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

12 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

All four accounts have continued the sock master's work at Don Quijote (store). The patterns of overlap on other topics are also typical of this sock farm. I appreciate that some might be too old to confirm, in particular Linearifolia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Additional information needed - @
    diffs
    to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  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) 23:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing provided for the active ones, and Linearifolia made a single edit a year ago and is thus probably not worth spending time on for now. Closing without prejudice against a new filing. --Blablubbs (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting/Archive&oldid=1188041972"