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

• Mayoticks (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pilean (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pumpsdups (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Setreis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sliekid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

I noticed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesmahagow High School the nominator Pilean had few edits and an AFD such as that seemed unusual. Looking for other similar accounts I found three (Akronowner, Sliekid and another, probably Setreis) but did not open a case here at the time. As well as similar nominations Akronowner and Pilean created their talk pages with the same templates, probably copied from a user who had been in a dispute in which Sliekid was also involved (that user is unlikely to be a sockpuppet). More recently there was a dispute at W. Mark Lanier where Sliekid reverted to a version by Akronowner; there was also a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in which Akronowner and Sliekid participated. Looking for the accounts again, I found Setreis, Pumpsdups and Mayoticks all with similar contributions. At https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1002977058#Additional_note_regarding_recent_edits_to_Wikipedia_page_for_W._Mark_Lanier is correct it's a possible reason for them creating multiple accounts for use at AFD. Peter James (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was about to open a case on Akronowner but will add it here since this SPI is not closed yet and involves some of the same accounts. My impression is these are sophisticated accounts, possibly running an extortion racket, and will not be traceable by IP but by behavior. The evidence:

• Background: the article W. Mark Lanier was nominated for deletion by Akronowner. The article also has a paid editor User:WriteJames who keeps watch over it. WriteJames reports that they were approached by Akronowner offline who requested money to save the article from deletion (extortion ie. AfD an article and then ask the victim for money to save it). No money was paid. This is a credible story, WriteJames has always been honest about his activities. This aspect is being pursued through other channels right now and is beyond the scope of SPI but it is related to further evidence.
• This is the third time Sliekid has been accused of being a sock in two months. Results so far have been inconclusive but suspicious. The behavioral evidence in this third case:
• I made many edits to the article W. Mark Lanier and was fully reverted by Sliekid
• I left a message on Sliekid's talk page, no reply.
• Sliekid then opened an ANI thread accusing me GreenC of being a UPE and requesting my account be blocked.
• Soon after, a new account was created User:Laniermark (an obvious COI name) and this account also accused me of being a UPE. Notice the sequence of events, first Sliekid accused me, then Laniermark did so. Neither provided any shred of evidence and both accounts went out of their way to remove me from the scene after I caught on to their activity.
• User:Laniermark claimed to be W. Mark Lanier, but this is obviously bogus (evidence on request). Furthermore WriteJames also reports this account has no connection to Lanier. It beggars belief that a fraud lawyer of his caliber (winning billions for clients) with a team of PR people would post on Wikipedia and in such an idiotic and personally embarrassing manner.
• The timing of when Sliekid and Laniermark posted in the W. Mark Lanier article: Laniermark's first post to Wikipedia was made within an hour of Sliekid's last post.
• Sliekid and Akronowner have both stopped posting to Wikipedia after these events.

Ok so all of this is pretty confusing and devious. The question is what is going on. The answer is a simple extortion scheme, and when it got thwarted they took revenge on Lanier himself by creating the fake account User:Laniermark to try and make him look stupid, and also attempted to get me blocked in revenge for thwarting their activity. -- GreenC 03:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GreenC! Sorry for reverting your edits. I was just busy in other work that's why I was not able to answer your concerns. Yes, You are a well-known entity, It is just I got confused by the points made by LanierMark account and at the same time, you were trying to fix the page and were removing the COI tags. It is what made me suspicious and I reported that to admins. My intentions were never to blame or accuse you. I am deeply sorry if any of this caused any issues. You are doing great work for this community. Your experience and dedication to Wikipedia work are marvellous. Editors like you should be always appreciated. As I am still learning Wikipedia daily. I hope you can guide me whenever I need help. I look forward to becoming one of your disciples to be a great editor like you and other respected editors. Sliekid (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Unrelated. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing per the above CU findings. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Akronowner (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ( Clerk note: original case name)
• Otisoagt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Setreis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

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

All voting the same way on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Feldman, originally created by Otisoagt. All three accounts show signs of being UPEs or sleepers. Setreis and Akronowner have obvious big-picture behavior similarities. I'm not going into detail on-wiki for opsec reasons except that Akronowner created the spam page Chi City (artist). Special:History/Draft:Jerry McLaughlin (artist) is also strange. MER-C 19:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Interesting - note that this editor has been accused of Orangemoody behaviour, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay" comment at AfD. I'd support a CU check. Pahunkat (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous CU came up empty but of course anyone can easily use a distributed VPN so it doesn't mean anything. -- GreenC 13:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other similar accounts at AFD recently - Cuoxo, Lidsdonne, SpareSeiko and Woinfosd. Some of the articles they nominated for deletion (particularly by Cuoxo) are from accounts with similar contributions to their own. I also noticed Special:Contributions/Venusecxces, an account created in 2019 and inactive here until last month. I'm not sure of a link there because of too few contributions and no overlap so far, but they created an article in the French Wikipedia in 2019 and checking the title here, an article was deleted after the editor who created it (Nickthestigg) was blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Peter James (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-clerk comment) About 75% of recent AfDs were filed with Twinkle, and WP:AFDHOWTO suggests the tool. I don't think using Twinkle to nominate AfDs is suspicious. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC) moved from clerk, checkuser, and/or patrolling admin section -- BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Lidsdonne and Venusecxces should be added to the list of suspected sockpuppets. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I have enough evidence to block both of them for spamming. fr:Paddy Adenuga (Paddy Adenuga) is a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seokochin article. Pilean is also suspicious. MER-C 12:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this SPI be put on hold? Pahunkat (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your thinking? -- GreenC 13:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If arbcom's looking into the issue, this could take a while. There's not much reason for this to be left about in the mainstream CU requests in the meantime, the same happened with the Orangemoody SPI. Editors are free to add to the SPI even when on hold. Pahunkat (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing this at random, but @RoySmith: as someone reasonably active in AfD, I'd definitely expect the majority of AfDs to be made via Twinkle. Obviously irrelevant in this case, but perhaps worth considering in the future. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In round 2 of the AfD we had three SPAs voting the other way before attempting to change some of the votes, all have been blocked for disruptive editing (One admitted that another was their account at WP:AN. Pahunkat (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent comments about another account are similar to what has been said about Akronowner [1][2] - contributions are Special:Contributions/Tbyros. I also noticed Special:Contributions/LucyLucy - a few edits in 2017, including creation of a spam article, then it looks like no more contributions until today, when they participated in several AFDs. Peter James (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LucyLucy I blocked as part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niceguylucky. MER-C 20:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuoxo recently made a request for deletion review of the Feldman article [3]. Peter James (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that, Cuoxo seems to have no knowledge about notability. Like if you see the recent AFDs done by him seems clearly notable. I would suggest undoing the AFDs done by him and warn him of his actions. Dinktods (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinktods, this is inappropriate. For whatever reason Cuoxo, has been unblocked, which seems doubtful has much of anything to do with your singular dispute over that one biography whose AfD you've contested. And, which at this time, you seem to represent an WP:SPA for. El_C 16:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Likely to  Confirmed on Akronowner, Otisoagt, and SpareSeiko, could be MEAT as part of a paid editing scam. The community should keep an eye out for more of this. Still looking into the others. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Just an observation: almost all the accounts mentioned in this case (including those in the archives) make extensive use of Twinkle to create the AfDs The sole exception is Otisoagt, who never used Twinkle. They also never created an AfD. It's unclear how significant this is. I don't work AfD much anymore, so I haven't been keeping up with trends; maybe Twinkle is just so popular these days that it would be more unusual to find people creating AfDs without it? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The last three unblocked are all on proxies, but Woinfosd uses the same obvious fake UA as Akronowner. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Woinfosd is  Confirmed. As Amanda points out, the rest are on proxies, so behavior will be needed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Case moved to oldest account (SpareSeiko) and socks re-tagged accordingly. Blablubbs|talk 01:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Found an incriminating edit for Cuoxo ([4], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mira Beauty), whom I have blocked. MER-C 18:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Added tag for Cuoxo -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Setreis, the remaining unblocked account, is covered below with a more detailed behavioural analysis of this group. Closing this one. Blablubbs|talk 14:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mayoticks (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pilean (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sliekid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pumpsdups (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Setreis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Citterz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Grailcombs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sugarikon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Miaminsurance (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is a filing of some new and some previously filed SpareSeiko accounts with a more comprehensive behavioural examination. While some of them were found to be technically unrelated in the first filing, the use of proxies here makes it possible that we're looking at false negatives in some cases, and the general MO of this group indicates that there may also be meatpuppetry at play, at least partially – either way, it's illegitimate use of multiple accounts. I worked on this together with MarioGom, who did a large chunk of the work (many thanks!).

General behaviour

• This sockfarm is allegedly related to an extortion operation, where the operators tell the victims (often UPE or COI editors themselves) that they need to pay to avoid deletion. This ANI thread may be of interest for context. This seems to be consistent with the tactics employed at AFD. There is a distinct pattern where one sock nominates an article, other sock start voting keep at some point, and the nominator then withdraws.
• The farm participates in a large number of AFD discussions (presumably to cover up illegitimate activities), so not all of their AFD !votes are directly relevant. Most of the time, they appear to just make pile on !votes in discussions related to BLPs or organisations.
  • The (presumably) unpaid AFD !votes are made in rapid succession. See e.g. Citterz participating in 4 discussions in 120 seconds ([5][6][7][8]) or Grailcombs participating in 3 discussions in 120 seconds ([9][10][11])

• After each account is registered, they make a few non-AFD contributions, create a short user page and head straight to AFD.

• Note that Miaminsurance and Sugarikon, while related to this group, have some distinct editing patterns, suggesting meat- instead of sockpuppetry.

Full interaction report.

Specific instances

• Nom and keep voting pattern:
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Mauricio Ramos (businessman): Pilean (nom), Hulatam, Ambrosiawater, Expertwikiguy, Sliekid, Sugarikon, Miaminsurance, Grailcombs, Lesliechin1
  • WP:Articles for deletion/John Burk: Citterz (nom), Grailcombs, Pilean, Setreis
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Rosemarie Allen: Setreis (nom), Cuoxo, plus some other suspicious accounts
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Sheila Robinson (author): Cuoxo (nom), Pilean, plus another suspicious account
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Rocco Did It Again!: Cuoxo (nom), Akronowner, Expertwikiguy
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Vanessa LEE-AHMAT: Cuoxo (nom), Pilean
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Gbagbo Junior Magbi: Woinfosd (nom), Sliekid
  • WP:Articles for deletion/International Medical Relief: Setreis (nom), Ambrosiawater, Pilean
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Pitchaya Sudbanthad: Pilean (nom), Grailcombs
• Keep brigade voting pattern:
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Kamel Rekab: Pilean, Setreis, Condoz (who also makes a bunch of comments), Grailcombs
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Jay Feldman: Otisoagt, Setreis, Akronowner
• In addition, two memebers of the farm (Setreis and Akronowner) were pushing a counter-consensus delete !vote at WP:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Ho Chiu-yeng.

• There is also a massive amount of additional overlap on AfD's that seem to be merely there for coverup, included below for completeness (forgive the timestamps, they were part of our original notes):

--Blablubbs|talk 18:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• For Pumpsdups, this is another telling AfD, which we missed in the initial analysis: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberley Chen (nomination + withdrawal without any comment). MarioGom (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  MarioGom Yes, I was new and I made a mistake that's why I withdrew this nomination with other nominations too. I am sorry if this was violating any Wikipedia rule. But there are many other editors who withdrew their nominations when they see enough sources. So, I don't think this is a reason to block me. I am new and can make mistakes like other new editors. I am also apologizing for this. I just completed my 12th I hope to edit further here. I also founded a great place which will likely help me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse). Pumpsdups (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I just read today all about this sockpuppet. The account listed above like Miaminsurance are pretty old and accounts like Citterz are pretty new. There is a wide long gap between us in Joining Wikipedia. I am not sure why from more than 10000+ editors on Wikipedia I am being listed here with having roughly 40 edits so far :D I know these numbers of edits are really a shame but really I have very little time to do edits as I am enjoying college life now. Pumpsdups (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Praxidcae No, this is not right. There is a long gap between joining Wikipedia. As also explained earlier, Yes, I was new and I made a mistake that's why I withdrew this nomination with other nominations too. I am sorry if this was violating any Wikipedia rule. But there are many other editors who withdrew their nominations when they see enough sources. So, I don't think this is a reason to block me. I am new and can make mistakes like other new editors. I am also apologizing for this. I just completed my 12th I hope to edit further here. I also founded a great place that will likely help me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse). Pumpsdups (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The evidence presented above is completely useless. I don't know spending hours and presenting something like this? Just added a few AFDs where there are two or 3 new voters. Can you please explain why you removed old editors from the same discussions? Why you are only listing new editors' names? The second thing you keep bluffing about Akronowner. As far as I see Arbcom looked at that case and they didn't see any connection or any evidence to declare Akronowner for that extortion scam on which your all case depends on Blablubbs. So, keep saying all these users as a part of the Extortion scam is a fire in the air. Please be briefer with your evidence to accuse someone of all this. Why I am listed here I don't understand. I don't have any connection with these users. Never ever have I got involved in voting with them. And without any explanation or evidence you suggested to block Bebopjohnson. It seems like you hate new users who fight vandalism. I request respected well known admins Oshwah and El C to look deeper into this matter. Citterz (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have time to investigate much of anything at this time (especially seemingly in the blind). Also, regardless, unlike Oshwah, I do not have the CU permission. El_C 18:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El_C for your precious response. Also, tagging other listed users who are completely unaware of this as they are not notified by the SPI nominator. As per the rules you shoud first notify the users for whom you are launching the investigation. Tagging Mayoticks, Pilean, Sliekid, Setreis, Grailcombs, Sugarikon, Miaminsurance. Some of these users are inactive for months. So, may likely not respond but let's wait for these users response on this. Citterz (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Citterz Thanks for the ping. I think this should end here now because the User:1BlueBerry who launched SPI against me was a sock himself. So, it doesn't make any point to list me here. It's quite hard to revert vandalism when you get asked questions for your good works. It really discourages and toughens the process to fight spam. Also, I see my account listed to be fully clear here, I don't have any sort of connection with the above accounts listed nor I do any edits for any compensation. All my work is volunteer side. Also, It's quite common to have 2-3 common overlap in AFDs Blablubbs when your most edits are related to fighting Vandals and advert spam articles. Setreis (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have been more active on Wikipedia lately and have found the articles for deletion process to be kind of interesting, so I have weighed in. I only have one account and am not affiliated with any of the others mentioned above. As I mentioned on my own talk page, I also found the conflict of interest debates to be interesting and sought out a few pages that had the COI template but didn't seem to have any discussion of it. I have since learned that this behavior is frowned upon and I have backed away from it. I'm going to "stay in my lane" in the future. 2600:1700:6F10:E90:C9E4:D614:CA16:4278 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely not a sockpuppet. I was just eager to help out with reviewing articles requested for deletion. You can see that I am actually contributing meaningfully to discussions on AFDs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matthew_Schellhorn — can an Admin explain why I am being targeted? This feels like a way to discourage people from helping. Bebopjohnson (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek I can assure you that I am not part of any sockpuppet farm. Each year, I spend my spring and summer in a rural area of New England in a neighborhood where we are all working off of a single Ubiquiti AirFiber connection that connects to my neighbor's router with DSL as a backup. We have four houses on this private dirt road, all using basically one internet connection, with at least 11 adults and 7 kids. I am positive some of my neighbors use Wikipedia too, but that doesn't make us sockpuppets of each other! In any case, even if I was using multiple accounts (which isn't against policy), I've not being doing anything illegitimate or untowards on Wikipedia. Bebopjohnson (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bebopjohnson, Your clarification is appreciated and helpful :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek I'm glad! I saw your note on my talk page and will followup as soon as possible tomorrow (it is late here!). This will teach me not to poke into the parts of Wikipedia I don't understand well ever again! Sorry if I caused you any trouble! :D Bebopjohnson (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend blocking of all based on this ticket as it's sufficiently convincing combined with the drive by noms/votes/general editing pattern. EGGIDICAE🥚 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have blocked Setreis and Citterz based on the ticket, but do not think it gives enough to block the others by itself. CU work  Inconclusive, proxies and UA spoofers seem to be in use. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. As for the others: They're a bunch of obvious socks on proxies and (with the exception of Sugarikon, who might be meat), and I urge patrolling admins to block this group sooner rather than later given the seriousness of the situation that's outlined in the ticket. Blablubbs|talk 22:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding Bebopjohnson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who was reported here by a blocked sock (likely in bad faith, since reverted), but actually does fit the pattern pretty well and overlaps with the farm ([12][13][14]). Please block that one as well. Blablubbs|talk 14:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blablubbs, Bebopjohnson is not part of this farm, but may be from another. Getting a second opinion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Working my way through this. Quite convinced Pumpsdups == Mayoticks == Woinfosd (and Woinfosd is confirmed to the SpareSeiko group), blocked them as such. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I see CaptainEek blocked the lot – thank you! Now tagged as suspected. Leaving open pending outcome for Bebopjohnson. Blablubbs|talk 06:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing, all are blocked, and Bebophjohnson is not part of this farm and not a sock at all. Their involvement in the AfD's truly does seem to be coincidental, as they have a long prior track record. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a note: I did end up blocking Expertwikiguy because I am convinced they are also a UPE. MER-C 19:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Akronowner (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ( Clerk note: originally filed under this user)
• Setreis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

This user is behaving same as the Akronowner, I think this is also a sockpuppet because, Setreis sock is just nominating other articles for deletion like the user Akronowner past contribution and also check the past contribution history of the user Akronowner BlueBerry ^Talk 16:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauricio Ramos (businessman) seems to be attracting a lot of unwanted attention. Every single keep voter except for Rogermx plus the nominator is suspicious. Citterz is also suspicious. MER-C 17:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filer, based on the global account log, was compromised by Arshifa and is not a sock. JavaHurricane 16:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Didn't receive ping as I turned them off due to abuse). Yeah, I know, saw your post that the filer was locked as a sock, just wanted to clarify that. (Otherwise there might be some who'd call the otherwise good faith filer a sock without looking at the log, as I almost did myself.) JavaHurricane 16:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blablubbs Can you explain your reason behind the block judgment? Despite checking these user contributions they are all under Wikipedia guidelines and rules. They just nominated this user article creation for which he got mad and launched a sockpuppet investigation which later resulted in a compromised account of his own. So, I don't see a reason to suggest a block for this user. Citterz (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: The filer is locked as an Arshifakhan61 sock. Blablubbs|talk 17:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  JavaHurricane, the account was compromised and being used by Arshifakhan at the time of the report. Blablubbs|talk 16:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This case is being reviewed by Blablubbs as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
  Covered above with better evidence, closing this one. Blablubbs|talk 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Makes an account and then immediately starts voting delete in AfDs. Similar behavior but might not be a sock of one of these, but a CU would be useful because Lesscynical basically has to be a sock of someone. Noah ^💬 17:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

It looks like there are two unrelated groups of accounts - SpareSeiko and similar accounts in one, and a few accounts such as Miaminsurance in the other. Most of those in the first group looked unrelated according to checkuser evidence; I don't know if it's the same with the second group. The contributions of Lesscynical look more like Miaminsurance. Peter James (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Unrelated as far as checkuser evidence goes... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This case is being reviewed by Blablubbs as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
  the MO here seems rather different (i.e. article creation and some cover-up activity at AFD); my take is "also UPE, but not part of this farm", but that's not really something we can handle at SPI. Closing without action. Blablubbs|talk 14:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Lesscynical  Confirmed to Miaminsurance, not technically related to SpareSeiko. But the MO does seem similar, still could be meat. There is something bigger going on here I think. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Tagged both. There are two other accounts that I suspect are related to Miaminsurance, but I'll file them in a separate case. Blablubbs|talk 23:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blablubbs: For the benefit of future reporting, would it be helpful to split this particular report to a separate case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miaminsurance? Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mz7, given that Miaminsurance is already mixed up in this SPI as MEAT, my plan was to file these two pro-forma (plus two others that I suspect are related) in a separate SPI and link here, but if you think splitting the section makes more sense, I have no objection to that either. Blablubbs|talk 21:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blablubbs, ah ok. I'm happy to defer to whatever you think is right. Either solution seems fine to me. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mz7, now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IrishChick2012, if you want to archive this. Blablubbs|talk 21:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Badgering delete voters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauricio Ramos (businessman) (2nd nomination), a renomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauricio Ramos (businessman). The latter was overrun by SpareSeiko socks. I don't expect to find any additional accounts, but determining whether proxies and UA spoofers are used would be useful. MER-C 12:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This case is being reviewed by Blablubbs as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
   Clerk endorsed I'd be comfortable recommending a block as suspected sock/meat based on the behaviour at the AfD alone, but there's the behavioural difference of not making any coverup edits, so I think it makes sense for CU to have a look in case this is a different farm (or in case they messed up while using proxies). Either way, this is an obvious sock and I recommend an ((sblock)) to prevent further AfD disruption in the meantime. Blablubbs|talk 14:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Unrelated. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree with Oshwah, I think its  Likely, they're on a proxy, and the UA is probably spoofed, which is the MO of the past socks. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Already blocked by MER-C,  Tagged, closing. Blablubbs|talk 12:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]