Sphe07 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Suspected sockpuppets

• ImpiloYatsotsi99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Sphe07 (talk · contribs) was blocked by me for disruptive editing, so I'm reporting this to an uninvolved admin, rather than act myself. Evidence of ImpiloYatsotsi99 (talk · contribs) being a sockpuppet include the addition of unsourced content (e.g. sockpuppeteer, sockpuppet) and creation of articles that use bare URLs (e.g. sockpuppeteer, sockpuppet). Mattythewhite (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I've blocked ImpiloYatsotsi99 indef per the behavioral evidence here. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Wez61 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Second suspected sockpuppet of Sphe07 (talk · contribs), who was recently given a one month block by me. Evidence of sockpuppetry include adding sources with bare URLs (e.g. sockpuppeteer, sockpuppet) and uploading non-free images (e.g. sockpuppeteer, sockpuppet). Mattythewhite (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Confirmed, blocking and closing. LFaraone 05:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Unqedable (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Third suspected sockpuppet of Sphe07 (talk · contribs), who is currently serving a one month block given by me. Evidence of sockpuppetry include adding sources with bare URLs (e.g. sockpuppeteer, sockpuppet) and uploading non-free images (e.g. sockpuppeteer, sockpuppet). Mattythewhite (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - New sock started editing around the time the previous sock was blocked. Add to that similar interests as evident from the links provided above, I think this is ripe for a check. Not declaring it a duck yet since there is no real "smoking gun" in the behavior. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Confirmed NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

I've been suspicious for a long time and assumed good faith, but now I need to know for sure. Alarm bells are ringing for WP:DUCK - edits in same area (South African soccer), similar writing style and referencing style, articles created look the same etc. As far as I can tell, this sock started editing after the last known Spehe07 socks were caught/blocked. GiantSnowman 20:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Check declined by a checkuser - Everything compareable is long since  Stale. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @DeltaQuad: - the last (known) sock was, I believe, Mshangane (talk · contribs) which was last active in June 2014 (i.e. 3 months ago) - is that still too old? GiantSnowman 20:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If anything, and im not 100%, only 2 edits are not stale and would need to be checked in the next 2 & 4 days respectively. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, what about seeing if this account's IP falls in/near a known sock range of 41.49.75.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) / 41.51.84.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) / 41.53.165.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? GiantSnowman 20:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't publicly disclose such connections. If get the appropriate diffs, I can see what I can dig up (I do have one or two tricks that might work), but be prepared, it might not be much. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Additional information needed - @GiantSnowman: As above, if you could grab some quick diffs between the accused and previous socks, that would help and I'll see what I can do then. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So we've got constant addition of bare URLs as references, e.g. 1 and 2 (in fact most edits from all his socks are like this!) His inability to use 'refname' (so repeated additions of same source as separate references) e.g. 3 and 4. Articles are also created in the same format, e.g. 5 and 6. All add up to clear WP:DUCK to me. GiantSnowman 17:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @GiantSnowman: There are indications that the user you presented is a sock of the previously blocked accounts. That said, there is no way in hell any CU will be doing a sleeper check here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have a think and then consider blocking per WP:DUCK, unless you want to do the deed? GiantSnowman 10:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @DeltaQuad: I have reviewed further edits over the past few days and am more convinced than ever, so I have blocked. Thanks for your help. GiantSnowman 10:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Closing. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]