Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyber.Eyes.2005/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Cyber.Eyes.2005

Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

28 April 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

These same edits on Nuristanis,[1][2] Dehwar,[3][4] Purigpa,[5][6] tells that this user is evading the block on his main account. LearnIndology (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

When I saw the result of this SPI, I was at first relieved: 'Phew! One fewer overenthusiastic rookie to clean up after!'. But then I looked at the previous account, and how they got banned, and I frankly don't get it. So, Cyber.Eyes.2005 registers and account and makes 7 edits on 19 March. Some are improvements, some aren't, all are good-faith. What they needed at that stage was a welcome message thanking them for the copyediting but also explaining how wikipedia works, and especially the need for sourcing. What do they get? All their edits are reverted without explanation by Aman.kumar.goel, who then posts the very first message on that user talk page, which is a level-2 (?!) warning about unspecified disruptive behaviour. Cyber.Eyes.2005 then makes 8 more edits, predictably of the same overall level of good-faith and mixed CIR as the first batch, which earns them further unexplained blanket reverts and a level-3 warning by Aman Kumar Goel. On the following day, four more edit – again not well-executed, but all in good faith – and they get indeffed by Alexf per NOTHERE (?!).

Now that ship has sailed. This young person has walked away believing Wikipedia to be a place where reverts and blocks are dished out arbitrarily and where no explanations are given. Nothing we do will change that, and we're probably stuck with the prospect of returning socks. But really, guys, this could have been handled differently. Next time a new editor bungles it with an article, just try to help out first, alright? It's not a lot of effort to check if some part of an edit can be retained instead of blankly reverted, and it's not a lot of effort to post {{welcome}} or to leave a pointer to WP:RS. – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala, his edits clearly showed WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour characteristic of the problems Wikipedia has faced concerning nationalism. This one [7] is a good example--removing the word "India" from every article possible where Pakistani topics and Indian topics overlap. I applaud the actions of Alexf and Aman.kumar.goel--one less problematic account editors here have to worry about. LearnIndology (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 April 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Restored the same image [8] [9]. Same editing area [10] [11]. Interaction [12]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

would like to request admins for protection of these pages. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:49, 30 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

08 May 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Already back to restore his sock edits.[13][14] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:08, 8 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

  • The restoration of the prior sock edit and the overlap on 5 relatively obscure articles within 14 edits is enough for me to indef the sock on behaviour alone. Not sure that CU is warranted here, but will leave that to the clerks. firefly ( t · c ) 13:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed -- RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13 May 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

[15][16] and [17][18].  Looks like a duck to me. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:09, 13 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

24 May 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Apparently same edits on Brokpa,[19][20] Gandhara kingdom,[21][22] Balti people,[23][24] and more. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I reverted edits by user Kishorebraj in the article Hindkowans that were clearly controversial and supported vandalism[25][26][27] but they got reverted by user Aman.kumar.goel without any reason provided and now I'm being accused by him for 'Sockpuppetry', the evidence provided by user Aman.kumar.goel are not solid and can't prove sockpuppetry. I request the administrators to please look into this fake sockpuppetry claim accused on me. (ཧེ་དར - སྦལ་ཏི། (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

All accounts now blocked. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

29 May 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new user[30] reinstated this edit[31] made by a now CU blocked sock of sockmaster. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:24, 29 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

08 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Clearly same.[32][33] LearnIndology (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Seems like a WP:DUCK. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Adds images from google without proper copyright information. Replaced the existing image with one that was uploaded by confirmed sock User:NorthernLegends [34]. Similar style of editing, using Ethnologue as sources [35] [36]. Same topic area, northern Pakistan and Afghanistan related. Interaction [37]. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:04, 14 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

  • REBELIOUS SOUL is  Inconclusive - they geolocate to the same place, and are moving around some of the same (very wide) ranges as previous accounts, but there isn't a smoking gun -  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Girth Summit (blether) 16:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - seems likely to be a sock based on the evidence presented and other behavioural similarities that I noticed. Please indef REBELIOUS SOUL as a suspected sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged. Closing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19 June 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Duck. Same type of disruption right from account registration. Chronologically, appears to be the master, but my guts are saying the account is a part of an older LTA farm (just see how disruption started immediately after account registration). Stale, but blocking might be a good idea since I'm unable to keep an eye on it. — kashmīrī TALK 02:20, 19 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

  • Insha22 is stale - they haven't edited in almost a year. Closing without action, we can revisit if the account becomes active again. Girth Summit (blether) 16:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07 July 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Clearly the same user: [38][39], [40][41]. Editorkamran (talk) 03:25, 7 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

  •  Confirmed. No sleepers jumping out, but again, they are jumping around a couple of very wide ranges so I might easily have missed something. Blocked and tagged, closing. Girth Summit (blether) 11:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21 July 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Unblock request on their talk page, same edits as before (e.g. This, this compared to e.g. this from Official Theory). Yamla (talk) 12:24, 21 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

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. --Yamla (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

29 July 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new user "Aayan Uzoqov" restored[42] the exact same content that CU blocked sock "People of Indus" originally[43] tried to add to the Uzbeks article. Basically promoting Pakistan's role in Central Asian demography-related figures, and vice versa. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More: Here they restored[44] the exact same content that CU blocked sock "Shayyan Behzad" originally[45]-[46] tried to add to the Tajiks article. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:19, 29 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

  •  Confirmed  Blocked and tagged. Mkdw talk 05:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new account "Merxat Yalkun" restored[47] the same edits that the sockmaster and his socks are very interested in adding to the Uzbeks article.[48]-[49] - LouisAragon (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

04 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new account "Turkic Khanate" restored[50] the exact same edit originally[51] made by the sockmaster's sock IP at Pakistan–Uzbekistan relations. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More: trying to make it seem as if Uzbeks are a massive, native group to Pakistan,[52] similar to earlier blocked socks.[53] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

10 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new account Kirito Otaku fixed a reference,[54] that was added by a known IP of the sockmaster,[55] aimed at reinstating the content that the sockmaster and Co[56] insist on adding to the Uzbeks in Pakistan article. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

19 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

All three new accounts end up meeting at Nuristanis,[57][58][59] like previous socks.[60]

Other same interests include Siddi,[61][62] Wakhi language,[63][64] Uzbeks,[65][66] and others. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:27, 19 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

03 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Same obsession with linking Central Asian and Tibetan ethnic groups to Pakistan. Brand new account Ibrahim Karlugh restored the same sort of content[67] that blocked socks Muhafiz-e Pakistan[68] and Shayyan Behzad etc.[69] tried to add to the Purigpa article. Same goes for the Zangskari language article, which is heavily targeted by the sockmaster and his sock accounts and IPs.[70]-[71] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:05, 3 January 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

14 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Same interests. Asking recreation of article Khajuna here which was created by this sockmaster.[72] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

18 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

IP addresses restoring the same edits of the previous socks and in the same IP ranges.

A much needed block is needed for the 119.158.0.0/18 as the sockpuppeteer has been disrupting a wide range of articles continuously.

Also asking for a CU on Muhafiz-e-Pakistan, blocked sockpuppeteer which is most likely connected with this sockpuppeteer. Gotitbro (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify, with regards the comment below, that this sock network has been known to use a wide range of IP addresses (per the SPI archive here) and the admin made these observations for Muhafiz-e-Pakistan in the link below:

I've run a check on Muhafiz-e-Pakistan, and they appear to have changed location - almost all of their edits prior to this week have come from the same country that Cyber.Eyes.2005 edits from. However, it's a large country, and they consistently geolocate to a very different part of it. ... The similar dates are suspicious though - it's entirely possible that Cyber.Eyes.2005 and Muhafiz-e-Pakistan are different people, but are coordinating their editing ... Some behavioural investigation may be useful.

Not a different continent but different locations, meat-puppetry is definitely not out of the question here, though I think it more likely to be a case of IP hopping than co-ordination per the very similar editing ehaviours and a conclusive analysis thereof is much needed as noted in these comments. Gotitbro (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CU  Check declined – Checkusers will not link accounts to IPs, per the privacy policy. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan was previously checked and found to be on a different continent than Cyber Eyes. Spicy (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Closing without action because the last IP edit was in February. Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar language and ethnicity disruption as the previous socks (specifically this sock)). Asking for a CU to further confirm this and weed out other likely existing socks. Gotitbro (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new account, restored the same sort of pro-Pakistan promotional edits at Uzbeks in Pakistan[73]-[74] and Turkmen in Pakistan[75]-[76] that his other CU blocked socks and IP socks tried to add (aimed at integrating Pakistan with Central Asian peoples and cultures). - LouisAragon (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More: Here at Tajiks in Pakistan, "TomHarry2023" reinstated the exact same source and figures[77] originally added by CU blocked sock "LearnIndology".[78] - LouisAragon (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it turns out you're not a sock of Cybes.Eyes.2005, you're still someone's. Its impossible a brand new user that registered nine days ago is able to a) cite/fix complex references b) add infoboxes to articles c) ping users d) dig deep down an article's revision history[79]. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats rubbish, "Even if it turns out you're not a sock of Cybes.Eyes.2005, you're still someone's.", I have learnt how to use Wikipedia and the formatting before I started doing my edits. I think you just wanted an excuse to revert all my changes for one reason or another. All information I added was referenced properly. TomHarry2023 (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added information which I believe is valuable. There has not been a Pakistan census since 2017 and there will likely not be one in the near future. The Joshua Project is one of the sites which give estimates of ethnic groups in each country and seems accurate. This is why I have added this information, not sure why you are getting so upset about this. BTW - you can't use CheckUser to pressure other users into accepting your POV, you are not the police here, free platform. The funny thing is, the CheckUser will confirm I am not a sock account, because I am not! TomHarry2023 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you have just removed info boxes from those article which were informative. All information I added there was referenced. Why did you remove the history sections on the Uzbek in Pakistan Page ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajiks_in_Pakistan has the same thing. You are the one that has an agenda, removing valid information. TomHarry2023 (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How did I add pro-Pakistan views, the articles are literally Uzbeks in PAKISTAN, of-course I will add stuff which is more related to Pakistan. TomHarry2023 (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, you need to find proof of me being sock before you revert all my changes. Guilty until proven innocent ? @Diannaa please can you check this, I feel this is really unfair. TomHarry2023 (talk) 08:44, 17 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

  • I agree that TomHarry2023 seems unlikely to be a new user, but CU says they're Red X Unrelated to Cyber.Eyes.2005 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cyber.Eyes.2005/Archive&oldid=1146790599"