Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting/Archive/1

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:

23 March 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


There is a strong possibility of sock puppetry happening to vandalize the page "The World Factbook list of developed countries". It is being vandalized by multiple users and IPs, most recently by user:Ineedtostopforgetting. The list is being changed to be inaccurate, and that user even made false claims in a edit summary, stating misinformation about the list. The CIA has not changed the list since at least 1991 - links - 1991 - http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/25/pg25-images.html "the 34 DCs are—Andorra[...]" - current - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html The history page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_World_Factbook_list_of_developed_countries&action=history First user:Ineedtostopforgetting needs to be banned for vandalism and sock puppetry, and probably other IPs and accounts, or we could just ban them as the new ones keep showing up on that page. Led8000 (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by an administrator to report sock puppetry if I suspected it here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=887988350#The_World_Factbook_list_of_developed_countries Led8000 (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2019 (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

This case is being reviewed by Cabayi as part of the clerk training process. Please allow Cabayi to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on Cabayi's Talk page or on this page if more appropriate. Cabayi (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Led8000, Hi! I've placed a welcome message on your talk page not so much as a belated welcome as a useful starting point to the community's policies and guidelines. Your complaint stems from an edit dispute for which your first stop should be the article's talk page. You suspect that Ineedtostopforgetting is editing while not logged in, assume good faith and remind them to log in with a {{uw-login}} warning. If that persists try {{uw-agf-sock}}.

In terms of your filing, you haven't identified any IPs, but of those I see in the article's edit history, none have edited in 3 weeks and the cluster of 171.41 IPs haven't edited in 6 weeks. They're stale.

Closing. Cabayi (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

31 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

These accounts have suspicious patterns of edit warring on List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.

"Feinoa" was recently blocked for edit warring with another user: [1] [2]

"Thehardtruths", which had no involvement with this subject and very few edits prior to Feinoa's block, is now now edit warring with the same user, with the same combative edit summaries: [3] [4]

Both accounts edited a quieter, completely unrelated article within three days of each other, when "Thehardtruths" restored content by "Feinoa" that had been reverted: [5] [6]

"Lucky dog" was warned for edit warring on the xenophobia article four days ago, and has also been using a similar tone in their edit summaries: [7] [8]

All three editors have a particular interest in parts of this article that relate to New York: [9] [10] [11] Cryptic Canadian 00:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


02 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Quacking on the COVID-19 xenophobia article. Two days after Feinoa was indeffed for using a sockpuppet to continue edit warring with another user, this "retired" user with no prior involvement is now reverting the same user, over the same passage.

Admits to being someone's alt here. Has an extensive history of editing (including edit warring) on Jewel Changi Airport which Feinoa has made substantial contributions to, and used a sockpuppet to promote to GA. Cryptic Canadian 02:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now completely back to old habits. Quack, quack, quack. Cryptic Canadian 02:44, 3 April 2020 (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 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar articles edited to User:Feinoa. Known sockpupeteer, recently blocked. Similar editing practices to socks. Unlikely a new user would know to place edit-warring warnings. Carl Fredrik talk 20:57, 3 April 2020 (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. @CFCF: In the future, it would be helpful to us if you would supplement your evidence in the form of diffs, such as [13][14], which highlight the similarities in behavior that you are seeing. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). Given the overlap with the previous accounts, as well as the account's overall behavior (harassing another user with a barrage of warning templates), I've extended the account's edit-warring block to an indefinite sockpuppetry block.  Blocked and tagged, closing. Mz7 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Edit-wars [15] [16] to reinstate the same POV content as the previously confirmed sock puppets Feinoa [17][18] and Thehardtruths [19].

(Filing this here per the note at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Feinoa)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2020 (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 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


My attention was drawn to the editor due to their edit warring in various articles and some overlap in articles like List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and Crime in Singapore where Feinoa had also edited or engaged in edit-warring in [20][21][22]. My suspicion that they are the same person when I noticed that they all have a tendency to remove non-English names in Singapore-related articles, either in the infobox or within the main body of text-

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

18 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Singaporean editor with a history of similar patterns of contentious editing associated with COVID-19-related xenophobia: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

The last three diffs were reverts of "Iswearius" who "Feinoa," etc had been blocked for edit warring with.

Diffs of identical behavior from "Ineedtostopforgetting" - [35] [36] [37] —{ CrypticCanadian } 23:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I can confirm that I am not a sockpuppet. I am not from Singapore. Should I reveal my IP address to show you what country I'm actually from? Firstly, I made this edit because the source says "Chinese descent". Secondly, I'm sorry but I don't understand how one can assume sockpuppetry because somebody made the same edit I made to List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. There was a disagreement at that page regarding the inclusion of "East Asian and Southeast Asian" in the article lede and multiple users were making the same edit that I was making. "Asian" is too much of a broad term and "East Asian and Southeast Asian" were the original terms used in the article lede before Iswearius started making changes to the lede. Thirdly, the edit history of Ineedtostopforgetting is mostly composed of edits to Singaporean articles. My edit history, however, is very different. I'm a responsible editor. If I wasn't then I would not leave messages on people's talk pages nor would I be engaging in a civil manner in discussions to resolve dipsutes. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2013 but late last year, a registered user attacked me and told me to create an account for my edits to be taken seriously after they disagreed with an edit I made. That's why I created this account at the start of the year to avoid that type of stuff from happening to me again because after years of editing I learned some registered users don't trust IP users. I'm really disappointed that I have now been accused of being a sockpuppet because I don't know how I'm supposed to defend myself from these accusations. (Sapah3 (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


21 April 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Lise Hereford was just recently banned as an Ineedtostopforgetting sockpuppet. New editor Humfer is now making the identical edits LH made on Cinema of Singapore (LH's edit here) and Singapore Post (LH's edit here), while also contesting deletion of the template LH created. Schazjmd (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

02 May 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new account just showed up to make same edit as previous socks had tried to make. Schazjmd (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

27 May 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Fairly new accounts, similar editing habits and tendency for peacocking on Singapore-related articles.


(Softandwhite) Made same Singapore-related edits to Singapore Post as Lise Hereford (banned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/954705963#16_April_2020) and to CapitaLand and Civilian War Memorial as Garsixfour (banned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/954705963#02_May_2020) Schazjmd (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2020 (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

This case is being reviewed by Creffett as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

05 June 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Same peacock edits to Crime in Singapore [38] as had peviously been made by sockpuppet Iahuaue [39] John B123 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2020 (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 July 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Noticed a level of pettiness in a change that was sneakily included in a revert (changed indicator "decrease" to "steady") similar to confirmed sock JoeFondeau who did the same thing recently [40]. Account is new with 90 edits yet has advanced knowledge (including templates, edit-warring warnings) and has already created an article: Singaporean nationalism. KREOH (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2020 (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

Both are  Confirmed along with:

Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13 July 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Noticed that Chasixe had made a couple of page moves on Singapore places with Malay names to English ones (here and here), which is similar to what Feinoa, another identified sock of Ineedtostopforgetting, had done on Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong back in March 2020. If the user is Singapore based, assumed from their contribution history, the user should know that Singapore localities with Malay names are WP:COMMON and official in Singapore. A CU may uncover additional connected users which disguise such troubling edits with other seemingly legitimate edits. – robertsky (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2020 (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 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Only edits so far are to add copyvio image to Pritam Singh (Singaporean politician)‎‎ as with what newly confirmed sock, TerrySoonLeong and Feinoa had done. Possible duck. CU request as well since sock is known to register multiple accounts upon discovery of sock accounts. – robertsky (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

21 July 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Vietbox made a couple of edits on East Asian cultural sphere that is suspiciously part of edits of previously confirmed socks – robertsky (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis also have raised that RRyomi may be a potential sock on my talk page, "the new user RRyomi (whose first edit included userboxes and a lot of userpage code) made this edit which was part of previous confirmed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting posts". I used wikiblame and found that the parameter value was introduced by Feinoa. Filing this user here as well to be looked into. – robertsky (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2020 (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 August 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Special:Permalink/970945768 by Jevenborg is similar to the series of edits by another sock User:JoeFondeau (last edit) that introduced inaccuracies and vague statements as noted by another editor. CU request for new hidden sock accounts as this sockmaster has a propensity to create new sock accounts in batches. – robertsky (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2020 (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 OK, these are all CU-confirmed with each other: YouCantStopMeLmao (talk · contribs), Mniensm (talk · contribs), Pimset (talk · contribs), MistyfelSR (talk · contribs), Atlasnail (talk · contribs), Jevenborg (talk · contribs). I will leave the blocking for someone who is a bit more familiar with these socks--User:Cryptic Canadian, maybe you know someone who knows them and who needs the $2 per sock block. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


The master has previously admitted to owning and abandoning this account, which is now editing again after a year of dormancy. CU for sleepers. —{CrypticCanadian} 20:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

13 August 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Edits are primarily on Hazel Poa, swapping in copyrighted profile image, a behaviour seen by other socks as noted in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting/Archive#15_July_2020. – robertsky (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding 61.8.215.35 (talk · contribs) who restored the changes mentioned. CMD (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2020 (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

22 August 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


10-day old account making large edits to Singapore-related pages that has already performed wikiproject assessments, hauled someone to ANI, edited other pages to add extraneous references to Singapore, and has a developing history of generally contentious editing. CU for sleepers. —{CrypticCanadian} 08:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • I think this but should be obvious but the Honoredebalzac345 account has always claimed to be Romanian but had never edited outside of China related topics until I pointed out their odd edit history and they diversified by adding a bit of editing in the television/pop culture space. None of it is related to Romania though, heck none of it is even loosely related to Europe. They also do this weird thing where they forget how to indent their comments on talk pages, except sometimes they appear to forget to forget but then go right back to forgetting later. I've interected with Ineedtostopforgetting socks before and these would fit the pattern of obsessive and abusive edits in the China related space, are we sure its not the Chinese authorities? Their editing priorities historically seem to have matched whatever is the issue de jure for the CCP. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Horse Eye Jack: INTSF has personally told me that he's supposedly being paid for his edits. I don't know much about the relationship between Singapore and China, but it wouldn't surprise me if a government was behind it. I can't imagine a tourism company paying a banned wikipedia editor to constantly right great wrongs. —{CrypticCanadian} 23:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is incredibly ridiculous, Singapore and China are completely separate countries and definitely do not have the same government behind it. I'm not surprised by some users nor where this is going anymore, one would expect more from this website. I have no idea what INTSF may have done, but stop linking me to their actions. Telsho (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Others should note that, in my response to Horse Eye Jack, I hadn't mentioned Telsho or any particular account. Rather I had mentioned what a previous confirmed sock had done, and commented on the origin of INTSF edits as a whole. Telsho's response above therefore seems rather self-incriminating to me. —{CrypticCanadian} 05:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh I see now, did you actually forget that this entire SPI was started by you against me? Who else would you be referring to? I think you should be consistent with your mudslinging because you're getting pretty confused yourself. And I love how you're feigning ignorance (among other things) with your lack of geographical knowledge. Perhaps you should do more research next time if you're gonna make accusations like that? Telsho (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • So are you claiming responsibility for this comment then? And where is the hole in my geographic knowledge? —{CrypticCanadian} 00:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Obviously not, which is why I'm here to defend myself on this SPI because you're accusing me in the first place. You're trying to make this connection that my edits are somehow related to this user and that they are paid, while being vague about what your thoughts are on the connections between China and Singapore and insinuating that you wouldn't be surprised that a 'government' was behind it, as HEJ was making an unsubstantiated claim that it is the work of the CCP, which has no political jurisdiction in regards to Singapore. Telsho (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, in that specific comment, I was referring to the person who was confirmed to be responsible for making that claim, so... I also meant exactly what I said - I would not be surprised if a government was paying that person, whatever that government may be (not sure how that implies geographical ineptitude, but ok). Whether you are the person in question (and therefore the one supposedly being paid) is obviously still unresolved. But I think your gaslighting and predisposition for putting words in my mouth speaks for itself. —{CrypticCanadian} 02:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found another one: Jesobul (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 100.37.166.70 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why wasn't I informed about this? I'm not a goddamn "sock", how many times do I have to defend myself after my ANI just because I've made edits on parts of Wikipedia that are highly controversial and contested between users who are incredibly hostile to newer users? Leave me alone already, I don't care what views you wanna write about Adrian Zenz or China, I haven't even edited in that area ever since, and accusing me of being the "Chinese authorities" without any basis is absurd. Isn't there a huge notice right above us that says not to make accusations without providing evidence, and that doing so is a personal attack? And who is that random new IP above me that's somehow involved in this SPI, how is that not more suspicious? Telsho (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC) (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comon guys, I'm disappointed in you! If you want to accuse users of being sockpuppets or government-linked accounts, you need to come up with better evidence than not indenting replies on talk pages, or the imaginary "similar editing patterns", or being in content disputes with the same user (says a lot about that user then). I'm sure you can do better! I expected more...try harder next time guys ;-) Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly not new users. The country comparison created by Telsho for Singapore–United States relations is almost an exact copy of the one heavily edited by Feinoa in Japan–Singapore relations, down to the extra fields Feinoa specifically added[43][44][45]. There is a similar table and edits by Feinoa on Malaysia–Singapore relations, but most of the edit history is revdelled so I can't compare the edits. CMD (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had initially copied from similar articles (eventually El C told me it's a WP:CWW violation and so I mostly just did the template thereafter) because it would have taken me way less work than to create a new one entirely. Before I started editing, I had looked at other similar articles to the topic so that I could get a general idea as to what I'm getting into. And I added way more than that, which after were trimmed down quite significantly (the talk page has more info), and I decided it should be left as is. I don't know where you're going with this, because there was already a lengthy discussion about this on ANI as well as in the talk pages and so it's a huge hassle to have to repeat myself all over again. Jesus. Telsho (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: The first Feinoa diff is fairly telling. I would say that these comparison tables certainly fit a common INTSF motif of selectively attempting to make places look inferior to Singapore based on economic ratings. —{CrypticCanadian} 23:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Same adding of the inverted name to the lead, same unsourced addition about some supposed "freedom of movement". CMD (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine stretching this far just to come to a conclusion and assume that they are the same person. Do you all actually think Wikipedia is some obscure website? Telsho (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will say that the accused user's comment above about the IP is also in line with the master's occasional projection when it comes to socking: [46] [47]. Anyone reading this may also be interested in this exchange. —{CrypticCanadian} 23:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, one user talked to another on their talk page. They're sockpuppets I tell you! Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, @Horse Eye Jack:, I was making edits to television pages long before your accusations of my "odd" editing history. Just because you accuse someone, doesn't mean their actions are always the result of your accusations. This might come as news, but you're not the center of the universe, nor of Wikipedia - as much as you'd like to think so.
Also - your editing history is very odd, are we sure you're not the CIA? Your editing priorities historically seem to have matched whatever is the issue de jure for China.
(See how easy it is to make accusations without evidence?) Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging El_C, since he was name checked. Grandpallama (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Separately, this diff[48] of the master may be especially notable in combination with the edit history of the Jesobul sock, considering that there's significant overlap with Telsho's editing interests on Asian cuisine and Asian cinema. I'd also note that Feinoa's copyright problems have been exhibited with Telsho--not just as a problem of CWW, but blatant copyvio, as I had previously brought to El_C's attention[49]. Grandpallama (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7, please see this edit, of a little-known, little-visited page Telsho had never edited before, where he appears solely to restore the edit of an earlier sock under the guise of "vandalism". The quacking here is pretty loud. Grandpallama (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also this edit arbitrarily expanding the lede to include Singapore, which is consistent with INTSF's obsession with POV-pushing on corruption and international rankings - such as these earlier edits to Corruption in Singapore. —{Canucklehead} FKA Cryptic Canadian 01:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that I still have quite a number of users with too much time on their hands constantly stalking and reverting my edits (and also not engaging in the talk page whenever I invite them there), I'm reiterating in my statements that I'm not a "sock" and I am confident of that. Accuse me whatever you like, I don't see why the blame should befell on me just for editing topics constructively that interests me. I know I'm innocent, and I'm sure the administrators and Checkusers will be fair towards me as I've literally have not done anything of the sort. Let me be clear, this is my only account on Wikipedia. I hope this "investigation" against me concludes soon and that this behavior will cease. I'm so tired of this. Telsho (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

28 August 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Quack. Old sock, new sock. Check for sleepers. —{Canucklehead} FKA Cryptic Canadian 17:16, 28 August 2020 (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

2 September 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


A new account. They made the same edit as Cope375 (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of Ineedtostopforgetting, who was blocked a few days ago. (Sapah3 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

07 October 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Recreated a deleted page created by this sockpuppteer, fits the profile at the LTA page. W42 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 October 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Same edits to Crime in Singapore [50] as previous socks have made [51] John B123 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2020 (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 also found JohnsonBirdman (talk · contribs) on the same quite busy range with the same technical information with edits to Bubble Tea like Elysiue, but I'm not confident on their connection. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

28 October 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Fits the pattern and hit two of Ineedtostopforgetting's favorite pages like a ton of bricks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2020 (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 October 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Editing the same pages, much interest in Singapore topics BlameRuiner (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2020 (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 BlameRuiner, Sinfamily/Somebodyandnobody/Nobodyandsomebody appear to be related to each other, but I don't see how they are connected to Ineedtostopforgetting. It would also help if you could provide diffs to definitively link Sgweirdo to Ineedtostopforgetting. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon closer inspection, I agree that Sgweirdo and Ineedtostopforgetting likely don't fall into the pattern, although Sgweirdo did edit some of the same pages as Ineedtostopforgetting's comfirmed socks. Regarding the other three, I would like to add one more suspect: Clbs. Should I split this group into separate investigation page? --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 October 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

I suspect this maybe a sock of Sinfamily, Per contrib. Who I always thought was a continuation of another blocked account. Govvy (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: So you think that there is no relationship what so ever for the fact of the main three articles that Somebodyandnobody has edited has been directly related to Sinfamily, then on the article Guillem Rodríguez which Sinfamily created Somebodyandnobody comes along and directly says Please Do not delete this article yet. on the talk page. How on earth can you say there is no relation when clearly there is some kind of relationship between the two accounts!! I don't mean to be rude, but please do the work and actually look into the contributions. If you can't see that, then pass this on to someone else. Govvy (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2020 (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 by a checkuser - Absolutely no evidence presented and what I saw could be explained by meat. Leaving at declined for counter-arguments and evidence. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Govvy, AmandaNP did not say "no relationship," she said "no evidence presented." Your evidence literally consisted of a link to Somebodyandnobody's contributions. As the SPI editnotice says, If you do not clearly and adequately explain why you suspect sockpuppetry or you fail to provide supporting evidence, the investigation may be summarily closed (and the request for CheckUser will certainly be declined), and that's precisely what happened here. Provide specific evidence (preferably diffs where possible) to establish a link between the two accounts. As the filer you are expected to give us at least some idea of why the two might be related.
  • Separately: both of these names, plus a third account not listed here, were reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting. That case is currently on hold pending an explanation of how they are connected to Ineedtostopforgetting. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Sinfamily has already be cu-confirmed as a Ineedtostopforgetting sock, so I'm going to move this case there. See that case for my analysis of Somebodyandnobody. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Comments by other users

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

  • @Horse Eye Back: Your advance apology to me sounds sincere but your reasons are weak and vague, and a waste of the administrators time. Then again, with the few ‘delete only’ editors popping up lately at the Singapore article, I am also curious about you and the others. So will you volunteer yourself for a sock test as well? Then we can both be satisfied. Katherine2005 (talk)
I agree. You'd be surprised at some of the reasons they gave for suspecting ME of being a sock. One of them was that I don't indent replies properly, and that I fit some imaginary "pattern" - whatever that is. At first glance, it seems they're more interested in abusing and hounding other editors in the pretext of improving Wikipedia. It's just a waste of everyone's time. And yes, I woudn't be surprised if they themselves had multiple socks. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteering isnt really a thing, if you have reason to believe myself and other editors are socks you should immediately file a report. I would waste no time. Also just so we’re clear we have close to 100 Ineedtostopforgetting socks blocked at this point... Given that you spend much of your time in their core editing area I’m surprised that your vitriol is directed not towards the sockmaster but against those trying to clean up the mess... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

5 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

  • I dont think we’ve finished cleaning out the East Asian cultural sphere cluster... Vietbox, Aitalie, SungKR, Lise Hereford, Mochikoka, Chasixe, TerrySoonLeong etc have already been identified but I’d like to put Smithrjs, GlowingMango, 67boi, George Fung, Adeex, and Quoctoann171 up for consideration as well. The recently mentioned 183.90.37.83 was also active there. This along with Adrien Zenz appears to be one of the more major clusters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2020 (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

6 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

  • I was taking a look at the few areas of significant overlap between Ineedtostopforgetting and Feinoa when I noticed this cluster of editors at Henley Passport Index assisting with and continuing their edits after those accounts were blocked. This is the basic Singapore boosting we all know and love from Ineedtostopforgetting. The first three have pretty much only edited Henley Passport Index but BushelCandle has crossover with a number of typical Ineedtostopforgetting pages however their larger overall presence gives me slightly less confidence that they’re a sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (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

  • Tasmanianarcher and BushelCandle are the only two non-stale accounts and both are Red X Unrelated to each other and Ineedtostopforgetting. Given that I've closed this report without action.

09 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Accounts sharing a naming theme that hit the usual topics such as various articles related to the Singaporean Economy, foreign relations, and Singaporean transport. All have edited COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore and Economy of Singapore. There seems to be some link to Citibank [52][53][54]. Other articles in common between the first two (the others have few edits) are History of Singapore Airlines, Mike Pompeo, and Bus transport in Singapore. CMD (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Canucklehead - Oops! Good catch! I put the wrong tag on the users. Fixed. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Also found and  Confirmed:
ANewSingaporeWiki (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
All are indef'd and tagged. No comment as to whether or not these users are linked to the master. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Appears intent on edit warring User:Naisemaey’s edits back onto Kaya toast. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2020 (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

Ponyo - Yes, thanks for catching that. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Big quack energy with this one, looks like another dedicated attack account. Interesting in that it doesnt appear to be within the normal suspected range. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two of them, identical edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Its triplets! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree:@Drmies: the unblocked one has resumed vandalism [58][59]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now four, they’ve taken me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring in addition to the normal vandalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Five. @Black Kite: you very kindly got the last one, can you please get this one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hey Horse Eye's Back, don't be quick to assume that everyone you come across is a sock. Have you come to realize that perhaps the problem is just you? After all, you've been making very equivocal edits on Wikipedia. :) 198.48.167.69 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

29 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


So this account (Somebodyandnobody) has been reported here twice (1 2) almost simultaneously by two different users (me and Govvy) and the connection was pretty well established the last time, yet no action was taken. Yesterday he did this edit out of the blue: [60]. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

29 October 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Already identified and blocked socks
  • Fits the pattern, also more personal attacks on talk pages (its the same thing as last time copy pasted) which probably need admin attention. It should be obvious in hindsight that Telsho was an Ineedtostopforgetting sock given the barrage of punishment that was launched after that account’s indef. Can we get them officially added to the list of socks? Huaxia, DemisJohnson, and Honoredebalzac345 are dormant accounts which in hindsight fit the profile and should be checked out, Ineedtostopforgetting has a long history of letting accounts go dormant before using them again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

183.90.37.65 seems to have picked up where 183.90.36.39 left off. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No wonder your previous attempt to get me branded as a sock failed spectacularly (if you are indeed the same person as the previous disruptive, abusive user you claim to be on your profile page). I am not a sock - no matter how much you might repeat the lie. Get over it. And leave me alone. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve never formally nominated you as a sock before this, I suggested that you might be during a discussion about a now indeffed editor. You know its interesting that both you and that now indeffed editor, Telsho, have come out of dormancy to tag me today. Just FYI your third to last sentence violates WP:NPA, please revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again you seem to be playing fast and loose with the facts. Your definition of "dormancy" seems to be rather interesting. My last edit on Wikipedia before today was on Aug 23. Meanwhile, Telso has been editing throughout October and September, repeatedly. That I and them tagged you on the same day (even assuming that's true) is a coincidence. Also, I also didn't "formally" call you a liar, I "suggested" you might be - if you want to get into semantics and pedantry. The indications for it are fairly strong (assuming you indeed are the previous editor you claim to be, who somehow "lost" access to their passwords, and also was notorious for taking liberties with the truth.) You need to get over your obsession with me. You do have not even a SHRED of evidence that I am a sock, and the previous investigation also showed up nothing. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Telsho has been investigated, you never have been. What do you mean by "the previous investigation also showed up nothing.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I thought I was investigated in that earlier thread where you tagged me. LET me be investigated then. Formally. I don't fear any investigation, as much as you might want to intimidate new editors. You repeatedly get personal with others and insinuiate all sorts of things and also seem to bend the truth and are rude and impolite, well, the investigation will show who's right. May the honest person win. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve barely interacted with your account, what are you basing these derogatory opinions on? Earlier you said I had an obsession with you which doesnt seem possible given the bare minimum of interaction between us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, needless to say, I made the obsession remark assuming that you are the same person as the user 'Horse Eye Jack', as you claim on your profile page. The way it looks from my perspective, your obsession with me (and derogatory comments and WP:NPA too - if you want to get into it) started on day one, almost when I made my first edits. You seemed more interested in the age of my account, rather than the content of my edits. It seemed you were apparently been WP:HOUNDNG me since then, following me wherever I go, even to pages where you had no recent history, reverting many my edits willy nilly, with little justification (and I'm not the first one to make this accusation). The evidence for this is all there in my history, if anyone wants to see it. That many of your reverts were themselves mostly reverted (with your agreement) after a brief discussion on the talk pages proves how shallow your reverts were. It looks as if you just wanted to cock a snook at the new guy - show them who's boss. If you really wanted to clean Wikipedia of sockpuppets, you would quietly open an investigation, instead of all this other seemingly abusive behaviour and WP:NPA. And I see from yours and HEJ's talk page that I am not the only one who's accusing you of all this. You might want to introspect on all that before continuing what seems to be as much a hate campaign as a cleaning operation. If you're really concerned, you can ask someone to be checked for sockpuppetry WITHOUT hounding them or abusing them. You CAN be polite and respectful to others AND contribute to cleaning Wikipedia at the same time. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Come on man you can’t misremember history like that, I wasn’t even the one who brought you to this page... That was @Cryptic Canadian: back in August [61] (the same person who first pinged me here btw). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you can ask someone to be checked for sockpuppetry WITHOUT hounding them or abusing them. - You mean like opening an SPI and including an account that was presumed to have been abandoned months ago? It looks like HEB did just that, but you took offense anyway. Maybe advise us on the proper course of action instead of gaslighting at every turn. —{Canucklehead} 03:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No - HEB didn't do JUST that, they did a lot more. If they had only opened an SPI, I would've let it pass. But they went much beyond that - to hounding, harassment, and disruptive editing. Moreover, an acccount being "abandoned" is no evidence of sockpuppetry. I've already covered in my above comment the abusive behavior of HEB and their previous account HEJ. Your accusation of gaslighting would make more sense if I was the only one accusing them of such behavior. There is enough evidence avaiable in my account history to prove every single one of my allegations - unlike their fact-free allegations of my being a sock. In any case, let the truthful party win. The investigation will prove who's lying and who's telling the truth. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear I’ve never said you are a sock, I said you might be. Suggesting that someone *might* be a sock of a banned user and asking for a check is very very different from making strong and unequivocal allegations of abuse, lying, disruption, harassment, and hounding. WP:ASPERSIONS requires you to either present your evidence or retract those statements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I've blocked some confirmed socks:

Telsho was previously checked, and recorded as likely. I would say it's a bit more than likely. The other accounts, without more information, I'm going to defer to others. No comment on the IPs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: is that confirmation on Telsho? They’re asking to be unblocked again and if they’re confirmed thats just a waste of everyones time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Again we have some big quack energy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Added new IP. CMD (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: The IP just hit Kaya Toast so I dont think theres any doubt anymore. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Their train edit was literally a restoration of edits done by A339 (talk · contribs) so I had no doubt before. CMD (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I had missed that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Not sure if this is a sock of Ineedtostopforgetting, but this guy has been removing information. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both are quacking, the second much more than the first. Classic Ineedtostopforgetting move of creating a SPA to barge into an administrative noticeboard discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Regarding the evidence provided by User:DarkMatterMan4500; I was actually merging the references into one cell for the cases between 21 Nov and 30 Nov, just like how the references for the cases for 1-10 Nov and 11-20 Nov are grouped. I apologize if it came off as malicious removal of content.

In hindsight, I should have mentioned it in the edit summary; again, I apologize for that oversight. --HzgiUU149377 (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 December 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Just popped up to continue with combative edits on Kaya toast. CMD (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Yeafeud (talk · contribs), new user with characteristic boosterism behind misleading edit summary. CMD (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock: [62], Yeafued: [63]. Also the name. CMD (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • I added In wkpd, they are nearly identical to a number of socks we’ve found here... In particular the jump into a discussion and almost immediately (and very competently) take one of the main participants to an admin board type. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added PompeyTheGreat, this account just popped back up on my watchlist with a disruptive edit [64] after a long absence. The last time we interacted I wasn’t aware of Ineedtostopforgetting, in hindsight their behavior is reminiscent of Ineedtostopforgetting. They also hit a few of the major points (misleading edit summaries, football, Ineedtostopforgetting’s favorite user talk pages, Taiwan, and Adrien Zenz). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: Regarding In wkpd, yeah, it's weird that they created their account in 2016, made a few edits, then went quiet until a few weeks ago. A gather that shortly before they came back to life, there was some viral YouTube video posted about Taiwan and Wikipedia, and it sounds like that's what triggered them to come back. Given the level of knowledge they have about our policies and drama boards, I wouldn't be surprised if they have experience well in excess of what their contribution history suggests, but I don't see anything that cries out as a Ineedtostopforgetting sock. As for PompeyTheGreat, they have a steady history that goes back three years, and again, I'm not seeing anything that makes me think sock, especially in light of the "unrelated" CU result. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07 December 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Clearly a sock, fits usual pattern of a new account diving straight into Singapore topics with a battleground mentality. CMD (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This would be the first time I’d seen Ineedtostopforgetting and Awanama feuding... That account is definitely a sock of somebody but it doesnt feel like Ineedtostopforgetting to me. There are so many Southeast/East Asia based sockers it can be hard to keep track, presumably some are state sponsored as well although I have to say I’ve never seen a sockmaster explicitly linked to a government before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

07 December 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

New IP, showed up at East Asian cultural sphere and started reinstating parts formerly added by Ineedtostopforgetting socks and advancing the same general position (aka all cultures are inferior to Chinese culture and theres no way other cultures could have influenced China because they were all entirely influenced by China). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back, There's a ton of data to sift through here, and you're much more familiar with it than I am. Could you provide some diffs (edit by the IP and similar edit by a confirmed sock) which demonstrate that this is INTSF? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That page is such a shitshow... Theres at least a half dozen confirmed Ineedtostopforgetting socks on there as well as at least four other active sock masters and at least three now indeffed users with no known history of socking. Given 124.168.91.91’s outburst today [65] I think they’re probably more likely to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backendgaming. This is a side note but theres even untagged sock clusters on that page like GlowingMango/WilliamOfCorange/Raven9722/AdjunctMonument[66]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

11 December 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Similar nickname as the ones found in 9 Nov 2020 report. Somewhat overlaps in the articles edited and content being edited. – robertsky (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2020 (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

RoySmith - Good call! Compared to these users, this is  Confirmed. Blocked and tagged. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17 December 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


New user, put in this Singapore contribution hidden behind a misleading edit summary, an effective replication of this edit by User:Yeafeud. (Speaking of which, Yeafeud was not tagged. Not sure who is authorised to tag them. @Oshwah:.) CMD (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: In my opinion this is pretty 100% on behaviour. Looking through those socks you found technically for example I found CornelloCreme (talk · contribs), whose edits are basically the same as Workfory (talk · contribs) and is part of the Singaporean cuisine crusade socks, yet didn't get picked up technically. Added above. CMD (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New IP, in the Sharewsitch group. CMD (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a user. Someone has time on their hands. CMD (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Lol, I came here to do this. I’m also unsure about who can mark suspected/confirmed socks and when. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Shareswitch is  Possible to the master here, but I've  Confirmed socks from Shareswitch with the same IP and user agent:
Morinestar (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Workfory (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
SwitchySwatchy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
DIamondLars (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ParisianWorker (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
LickerOfTheBoots (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Buy ch e a p V I A G R A - No presciption ecotippingpoints,org (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
All will be blocked. Leaving untagged as I can't confirm that Ineedtostopforgetting is the master. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: are you sure you can’t confirm? LickerOfTheBoots has edited this very page [69] and Yeafeud is confirmed, no?. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back - This is likely a different sock. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed all of the following to ParisianWorker (talk · contribs), already blocked (above) by Oshwah as sock of INTSF:
CornelloCreme (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ProllySauce (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
JenniferSwifty (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
I also found three throwaway accounts with names like "NEED FR33 0PEN UNBLOCK3D POROXY ? FREEVPN.gg" that for some reason can't be blocked (maybe strange characters in the account name). They also don't appear in Special:Listusers when you try to display accounts starting with 'NEED F'. Notice that some account names seem to recycle the word 'switch', like Shareswitch and SwitchySwatchy.
I blocked all three of these accounts and hope someone else will tag. – EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

185 is restoring previous sock edits on Hainanese curry rice. Different IPs are also restoring on List of Singaporean inventions and discoveries. These IPs jump a lot and a range-block may take out many other IPs, so I would suggest moving to semi-protection, as was recently done for Hawker centre. CMD (talk) 04:01, 6 January 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

14 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

The user's only edit was gravedancing at User talk:Sapah3, an editor who feuded with socks of Ineedtostopforgetting (Shetskein and Cope375) and was blocked as a result of an SPI case opened by another sock (AbsorbedLastage). — MarkH21talk 23:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — MarkH21talk 23:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, their only edit indicates that they are an obvious sock of someone and an obvious WP:NOTHERE case. — MarkH21talk 01:47, 15 January 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

09 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

yet another possible sock. Primarily suspecting due to wholesale revert to a revision by an earlier sock on Singaporean nationality law. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singaporean_nationality_law&diff=999267734&oldid=990885541&diffmode=source vs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singaporean_nationality_law&diff=970945768&oldid=968787088 – robertsky (talk) 10:46, 9 January 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

26 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Potential sleeper account, created in 2015 but not really used until this November. Was using Shortdeschelper and Twinkle by the second day and was reporting to SPIs by the fourth day, and creating the Awanama SPI. Standard interest in Singaporean transport. Classic removal of Malaysia from food and beverage articles under a misleading edit summary (example from previous sock [70]). Usual hit on Template:East Asian topics preserving edits of previous socks. CMD (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost immediate edit to set up a blank userpage, the same as Ineedtostopforgetting. Edits to remove Hawker centre from Malaysia [71][72] (eg previous sock). Edits to Covid-19 related articles to make Singapore look good[73][74] (previous eg). Adding negative information about South Korea under a misleading edit summary (previous eg).
Compare to the LTA page. Edits to Economy of Singapore, Culture of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, Singaporean transit (mentioned above), human rights in China[75], articles on Taiwan[76], East Asia as a general topic (mentioned above), even football[77]. Editing other Asian countries to insert unfavourable comparisons to Singapore (misleading edit summary to boot) [78]. CMD (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I think this needs more examples as well. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me about this. I suppose this is interesting for me. Yes, I've been a Wikipedian for quite sometime, but haven't really gotten around to being seriously active until late last year. All I can remember other than this are making minor edits outside of my account as a logged out IP (around 2017 to 2018) on some TV shows I was watching, and nothing else that I could think of. It's unfortunate that there's an disruptive LTA hanging around these circles based on their LTA page, it's definitely a hurdle and I don't put it against you for being suspicious, I would too.
I was not aware of one of their socks being active on that template, all I was focusing on was reverting AgeOfAntiquity's disruptive behavior. It was a new account who've made major edits on the same day it was created (and not since), triggering the "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" tag while accusing another user (Quoctoann171) of being a POV pusher. Doesn't that seem weird to you? Transport does interest me, but it is not limited to a single country. Sepp Blatter's resignation way back in 2015 made international news (and was what influenced me into updating his resignation date there) and it was more about his corruption issues than football, though I'm not sure why you think that's a connection, unless this LTA was a prolific editor there as well. These articles are not obscure or unfrequented. Anyway, you're welcome to request a checkuser if you're confident of my connection with this LTA. ShelteredCook (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since CMD has provided more "examples" by misinterpreting my edits (Literally look at the diffs, I'm not even sure how the last example is supposed to mean "insert unfavorable comparisons to Singapore", when the same argument could be made for Japan, but that's what I get for improving articles I suppose) I'm just going to leave it until an admin responds. ShelteredCook (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attaboy CMD! Given the continuation of their feud with Sapah3 I have zero doubt this is an Ineedtostopforgetting sock [79][80][81]. This hits every note of an Ineedtostopforgetting sock from the commonplace (Uyghur genocide and Singaporean MRT) to the painfully obscure (e.g. their feud with Sapah3). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol they’ve even hit milk tea [82][83]. If its not an Ineedtostopforgetting sock someone has put in years of work to make it look exactly like one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to add some evidence I just stumbled across and an account as well. On Jan 7 ShelteredCook made a large edit to Tourism in Taiwan [84]. They were reverted by an IP with no other edits [85]. Now heres were it gets interesting... An IP (95.57.207.203) comes along and reverts that IP [86]. Now 95.57.207.203 has only *four* edits, two of them are the standard INTSF bullshit on East Asia[87][88]. The other is a revert at Sangeetha Thanapal, a page ShelteredCook had tagged for deletion just three days prior [89]. This fits the pattern of INTSF and other sockmasters/IP hoppers pseudonymously feuding and clearly implicates ShelteredCook. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're giving this sockmaster too much credit at this point, because this does not imply anything about me being connected to INSTF. The articles you mentioned, INSTF or their socks has never made a contribution on them. My account literally existed before the entire INSTF debacle. I contribute to articles on a wide range of topics, and not *everything* has to somehow imply a user is somehow connected. A look at INSTF LTA page shows how extremely broad their "Targeted areas, pages, themes" really is. I don't know the full picture but it shows here that before they were blocked, they had only made 344 edits throughout Wikipedia, so it must have really gotten out of hand somewhere since. For all we know they probably hadn't socked in quite sometime, and some users along the way may have potentially been blocked as collateral (10 suspected blocks it seems like), or they have been others (that are distinct from INSTF) engaging in similar behavior but has gone undetected because everyone keeps focusing on this one sockmaster, and so was just lumped in together with INSTF. It's turned into some Walmart-brand McCarthyism-ish behavior by grasping at straws of every tiny ounce of "possibility" that a user is a sock of INSTF, and I'm surprised this hasn't been threaded more lightly or addressed by an admin. I know I'm not them so you can continue digging my edit history to somehow place a "connection" with me and this sock. Because if that's the way it is you're as much implicated as a sock of INSTF than I do based on their "Targeted areas, pages, themes". You're pretty much involved in almost 90-95% of articles that INSTF has supposedly gotten involved in. Definitely an interesting thought considering you did brought up "pseudonymously feuding". ShelteredCook (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to put together the case I’m more than happy to allow myself to be considered. Look at the IP, whether or not thats you thats an IP that appears to be INTSF and its restoring your edit. I’d be worried about that if I wasn’t an INTSF sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See [90] and [91] if you want to familiarize yourself with some of the other accounts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: In addition to the evidence noted above, I see that one of the very first things they did when they awoke from their 5-year slumber was ask for a name change. I'm not 100% convinced ShelteredCook is INTSF, but there's no doubt they have more wiki experience than their edit history belies. How many new users do this on their third edit?  Blocked and tagged -- RoySmith (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Both IPs are restoring POVs inserted by Ineedtostopforgetting and socks on East Asia, also a note they picked up where ShelteredCook left off. I haven't see much shoehorning of Singapore into this sort of thing that hasn’t been INTSF. The use of comically misleading edit summaries (such as this wide ranging 800+ byte edit [92] with the summery “spelling") is also a defining trait linking them with this sock maker. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new dedicated attack account (173.237.207.37), haven't seen one of those in a minute. Looks like I was barking up the right tree. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Talk:Chinese Communist Party also needs protection. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After being put off from editing for a few days after my accusations, I've been observing this SPI and I realized my username being brought up again. This statement "also a note they picked up where ShelteredCook left off" is absolutely false, it was clear I was reverting a disruptive user (AgeOfAntiquity) and not because of the content being re-added/removed. That content wasn't even there at the time. I would really appreciate if you would quit putting the work of random IPs to me. I don't fully understand the history behind you, Chipmunkdavis and Ineedtostopforgetting, and I don't even care enough to know, but don't use me as pawn to get a point across. Go find someone else to grind your axe with. ShelteredCook (talk) 00:10, 4 February 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

6 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Brand new IP from a similar range to the above ones making a mass revert on Singapore–United States relations. They have restored a series of edits which Telsho had edit warred over for a significant period of time. Back in November zzuuzz said "Telsho was previously checked, and recorded as likely. I would say it's a bit more than likely.” but we didn’t go further as Telsho was already indeffed. so I’m proposing both a block on the new sock and a formal confirmation of Telsho as a INTSF sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my support here, as the user who just undid some of the socking edits at Singapore–United States relations. These edits are specifically to restore Telsho's preferred wording, and the other editing by the socks (Disney, Malaysia) is in line with the interests of INTSF socks. Grandpallama (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Pinging @GeneralNotability and Oshwah: if they have anything else to share. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

19 March 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


This user has only edited on Commons, but the images they uploaded were brought onto en.wiki pages by obvious IPs of this user [93][94]. The IPs are already blocked as proxies. Given the user in question, requesting CUs for sleepers. CMD (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freeland Galbano is similarly commons only, four edits only, including edit warring on File:East Asian Cultural Sphere.png in support of already blocked Mochikoka (talk · contribs) and already blocked SungKR (talk · contribs).

Suryakant Bharti is also inexplicably involved in that edit war, they have a few edits on en.wiki, including touching on RCEP which other socks have touched on. They have a very odd edit history too.

Adding unblocked IP ducks, there for the record mostly.

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 accounts with no edits on enwiki are out of scope for SPI. As for Suryakant Bharti, they seem to be engaged in some self-promotion, but I don't see anything that links them to the INTSF. Closing with no action taken. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Block evasion of 46.125.250.118. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I have already explained that I am neither a sock nor a duck above. @Oswah: I have also informed admin Oswah with which I had a similar problem at Yamato people. I have already explained in my edit summaries and above that it was a long term vandal (Sapah3) which constantly deleted Liu et al. 2020. I than reincluded it and further added content from Languages of East Asia to improve the article. The article should more become like Ethnic groups of Europe. You can make a check user and or compare the edit history of my IP range with this sock here. But do not make a mess out of the article East Asian people. Have a nice day.46.125.250.127 (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Ineedtostopforgetting and Sapah3 have a longstanding feud. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


All these accounts are active on articles relating to Singaporian politics or in general, who ineedtostopforgetting frequents. They may seem like established accounts but let us not forget that he has been active (that we know of so far) since 2015. It used to be 2019. It's probable that this has been going on for way earlier, or has undetected accounts within our midst. 24.204.150.197 (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

According to 24.204.150.197, no one but INTSF frequents pages on Singaporean politics and topics and everyone editing such pages should be indeffed. Brilliant deduction I say. Seloloving (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seloloving, i feel left out. (ᓀ ᓀ) – robertsky (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could always add you to the list above. :)) Seloloving (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seloloving, hahah. no thanks. – robertsky (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seloloving, let's open one SPI for robertsky! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Justanothersgwikieditor, my sock drawer is open for all to see. here's a sock for you. (─‿‿─) – robertsky (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ʕノ•ᴥ•ʔノ ︵ 🧦🧦🧦 Seloloving (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Hello Oshwah. May I request that all the closed SPI reports and those awaiting closure be archived when you have the time? At this rate, this page is getting too long and I would say its length is part of the reason tackling the LTA is getting more difficult to comprehend, in addition to all the harassment-only accounts which may or may not be by the same user. Seloloving (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seloloving - I'll leave that to an SPI clerk to get done. The user who closes an SPI report, by practice, shouldn't be the same user who archives the SPI report. This assures that everything is checked and that all the right steps are taken and completed before the SPI report is archived. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

02 April 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Split from 19 March 2021 report. CMD (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding ארנב אביב who just appeared on Singapore model. Not requesting a CU at the moment given clear proxy use. CMD (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding NutPSe who has appeared newborn with knowledge of faith protocols to restore previous edits. (Blocked surfshark IPs, NutPSe, IP, NutPSe) CMD (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Goldetaremung as obvious duck. CMD (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Zillerson appears to be a harassment account created to target Matt Smith. CMD (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New duck IP, and PublicaPope is a duck user with characteristic misleading edit summary and puffery. Reopening CU request given the number of new accounts found, which all seem one-off accounts aimed at a particular page/person. CMD (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleye Jackie (talk · contribs) clearly created to edit war with Horse Eye's Back (who has been involved in past SPIs here), and has their edit restored by an IP (185.246.88.104 (talk · contribs)) from a now-blocked webhost range used by the sockmaster.

Wulinshanren (talk · contribs) and Vancancy (talk · contribs) are a more interesting situation. The edits stay away from the usual areas of contention, but has the unusual intersection of East Asian transport articles and places in London. More odd is the overlap with clear duck IPs. Their earliest edits are to Wulin Academy of Arts, which was created by Wulinshanren, a user who existed only to create that article, which they did over a week. The very next day after their last edit, Vancancy makes their first edit ever on that article, in which they add an image uploaded by Wulinshanren. This image is currently suspected to be a copyright violation, which matches various previous accounts who have uploaded a variety of copyright violations to commons. That article was then edited on 27 December by a proxy IP who is part of the range 103.152.150.0/23 (talk · contribs), a clear duck. Also on 27 December, Vancancy created Chen Xiaofeng, and the same day that article was edited by the IP range, and the IP range created Talk:Chen Xiaofeng.

Sgwikicontributor (talk · contribs) is another account with weird overlaps. For example, they edited Bukit Panjang starting February 2020, overlapping with Feinoa (talk · contribs) there. Bukit Panjang was edited by blocked proxy IP range 209.216.92.0/24 (talk · contribs), who is obviously the master, more recently. On 27 March, Sgwikicontributor edited Hillion Mall, an article created by Telsho (talk · contribs) and also edited by the 209.216.92.0/24 range. There have been no substantive edits to the article outside of those 3 editors. (Note: This is not Justanothersgwikieditor (talk · contribs), although it seems likely the latter's username served as an inspiration.) CMD (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~Oshwah~, both of the stale accounts have reactivated. Is there a procedure to recheck? See also [95] for clear link. Some of their photo uploads have also been identified as potential copyright violations at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 158454960@N02. CMD (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Hello, I am sgwikicontributor. I do not own the account ‘Feinoa’, ‘Ineedtostopforgetting’ nor the account with the IP address starting with 2XX. I only own one account, which is the one I am using to communicate this message. I also do not have links to another mentioned user with a similar username, nor have I heard about him/her prior to this accusation, nor have I gotten inspiration from him/her. This is all just pure coincidence. If a CheckUser has to be administered, I hope it brings to light that I only own one account and that I am innocent and can be let go of these claims. I am sgwikicontributor, and I own no other account. Thank you. -sgwikicontributor

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Possible:
Sgwikicontributor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Red X Unrelated:
Bulleye Jackie (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
John Zillerson (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ארנב אביב (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Wulinshanren (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Vancancy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
no No comment with respect to IP address(es). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, Could you take another look at these last two? They have started editing again so are no longer stale. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith - I've moved them into the unrelated group. They don't appear to be in the same geolocation or anything. That's all I can really give you... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I don't have time to really get into this case right now, but per request from Chipmunkdavis, I looked into some of the IP activity and blocked 183.90.36.0/23 for a month. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I started looking at this again. Well, really just the possilikely group. @Chipmunkdavis:, I looked through Goldetaremung's contribs and I'm not seeing the duckyness there. If it's just the edits to Asbestos, I'm inclined to say that not every Singapore-related edit has to be INTSF. Is there more? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at PUblicaPope and NutPSe as well, and I'm afraid I'm not seeing the connection there either. You're going to need to walk me through how the edits from these accounts are similar to edits from Ineedtostopforgetting or an account we're confident is a sock. In Nut's case, I agree that they have deeper knowledge than their edit history would suggest, but don't see the connection to this case. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: Okay this was awhile ago, but looking again those three accounts were all created to restore edits from a period of prolific VPN iping. Goldetaremung was created to restore this edit by a proxy IP. Hopefully the contribs in that IP confirm it for you. PublicaPope was created to restore this proxy IP edit, which was part of the period when the ShelteredCook account was being used to hide IP edits on watchlists (immediately subsequent to the IP edit). NutPSe was specifically created to restore the edits from a variety of proxy IPs ([96][97][98][99], as well as Govercon). For those two again, the other edits by those specific IPs and edits within their range block are hopefully informative. Looking at the Goldetaremung edits again, I'm afraid I must disagree with the lack of duck assessment. Even if there wasn't an IP, there's some clear aspects of those edits which catch my attention. While here, could you please block Bersablert, which is currently on an auto-confirmed adventure. CMD (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged Goldetaremung, NutPSe, PublicaPope. No action on the other accounts. As for PublicaPope Bersablert, I see they're listed in another day, so in an attempt to make some concrete progress on this huge case, we'll handle that when we get to it. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13 April 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Redone below

Clear quacks. Mindandaeno's only edit is to restore previous LTA. Jerry Bentron is classically adding copyrighted images to the usual set of pages. Starting new SPI per completion of CU in previous investigation. CMD (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AzərbaycanQalsın in this edit shows the classic boosterism (throughout), removing/altering sourced information ("laws were tightened in 2010" was changed to "laws were relaxed in 2010"), and adding text from an edit under a previous sock account here to anther page, all under the usual misleading edit summary ("copyedit"). AssertiveAnchovies only edit was the edit prior to these ones (although by a few weeks) on the same page which was to remove negative information. Achovies' edit shortly followed already blocked ShelteredCook, who followed 183.90.37.232. 183.90.37.232 is clearly a duck ([100], and ShelteredCook was frequently used to edit following IPs). CMD (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThungKrug is a new user that jumped to Hawker Centre to restore the usual boosterism edits of by DidIWikiThat, Mochikoka, and CornelloCreme. Note that protection fell of this page at the end of March, and since then the page has also been pov edited by another new user pushing a different POV (already blocked by Oshwah), so it is probably worth re-protecting the page. CMD (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Gardeenshine for completeness, behavioural duck, already blocked by Ponyo. CMD (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Sloutsch, which was first activated for user and talkpage creation in late December (similar timeperiod to AzərbaycanQalsın, John Zillerson, and Bulleye Jackie, which was shortly after the 17 December 2020 case socks were blocked). Activated on 2 May, using twinkle on that first day for a rapid fire series of edits, some multiple within a minute with quite advanced summaries (including calling out IP coordination [101] similar to has been done before [102]), now making edits [103] that partially restore previous edits from old socks [104] hidden under a minor tag. Already using RFPP. Classic UK, Singpaore, Taiwan interests. CMD (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Ishnicht, a clear duck, restoring previous edits ([105][106]) under a misleading edit summary. Part of recent trend of creating new accounts for specific pages. Given this is now a long list, requesting a new CU as even though there is proxy use, previous CUs have found some links. CMD (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although the CU here has already been completed, I thought it worth noting for SPI records that Govercon was blocked by NinjaRobotPirate on 6 April on technical grounds. CMD (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mindandaeno is part of the extensive sock history at Vending machine, created to partially restore this Proxy IP edit. One of the various single-focus accounts recently created to avoid detection. Note also classic use of a misleading edit summary ("‎updating information").
  • Jerry Bentron is one of the accounts created to push varoius images uploaded by the user through other accounts to commons, often copyright violations. Two edits ([107][108]) to upload MerlionSG.jpg, One for CavenaghBridge.jpg, one for AndersonBridge.jpg, one for SingaporeSportsHubNight.jpg, one for File:CT251Display.jpg. This edit added one copyrighted image, to an infobox that had been put in place by ShelteredCook and the 183 IP. This edit added a bunch of copyrighted images. Note also the transport interest, and the note to Guoco Tower, an article which had received a similar addition of copyrighted images by an already blocked sock. All of these are all already deleted on Commons and I can't remember who the original uploader was. In addition to the Guoco Tower example, see WikiuserINTL (talk · contribs) as a similar previous example of an image sock. Note also hiding all edits under minor tags.
  • AzərbaycanQalsın and AssertiveAnchovies are both single-focus accounts that only edited Human rights in Singapore. AzərbaycanQalsın is the obvious one, with thier edits this edit showing classic boosterism, along with deliberate misinformation (changing "laws were tightened" to "laws were relaxed"), while also adding text that was previously added by the JoeFondeau (talk · contribs) sock to Capital punishment in Singapore. Note also classic use of a misleading edit summary ("copyedit"). AssertiveAnchovies has only made a single edit, which was the edit prior to these ones (although by a few weeks) on the Human Rights in Singapore page. It served only to remove negative information. The edits immediately prior to Achovies' edit were by the ShelteredCook sock, and prior to that were edits by the 183 IP. Note also this article was previously also targeted by Feinoa and Mochikoka, also to try and show Singapore in a more positive light.
  • ThungKrug was created to restore edits to Hawker centre previously made by the DidIWikiThat, Mochikoka, and CornelloCreme socks. Note also the other various edits used to mask the restoration focus, as also seen in the AzərbaycanQalsın sock (and Sterino and BrandenburgWatch, both mentioned in later reports).
  • Gardeenshine is already blocked, but not in relation to the Jerry Bentron account above that it also added MerlionSG.jpg, while also participating in the classic edit war with the Awanama sock farm.
  • Sloutsch was created in the last week of December 2020 (same period as AzərbaycanQalsın, John Zillerson, Bulleye Jackie, Lianoland, and ChipmunkdavisLovesInkei), but didn't do anything. They were reactivated in May 2021, and had a brief rapid activity including a overlap with disparate pages INTSF had previously edited Healthcare in Singapore, Kopi, Taiwanese nationalism, and in general there's the familiar UK, Singapore, China/Taiwan interests. The account was already using twinkle on their first day, something common for INTSF socks. The twinkle and using the account only for reverts reminds me of accounts that warred with the Awanama sockfarm. I mentioned in my initial report here that they were making advanced edit summaries on IPs, citing this diff, and referencing this ShelteredCook diff as a comparison. Unfortunately the first diff is now deleted, so I can't check on that previous assumption, but perhaps an admin could see it. Also advanced was using RFPP. A later edit added a source to Kopi that had previously been added in the same place by ShelteredCook edit. This was hidden under a minor tag. This is a more subtle account, but the behavioural overlap raised a flag for me, and the sleeping and advanced knowledge fit the profile.
  • Ishnicht is another single-focus account created for Singapore passport. Note that this edit restored a favoured image change (JoeFondeau and an IP), under a misleading edit summary. A similar scatter-shot approach to editing a bunch of other articles to disguise the article of focus, as mentioned previously.

CMD (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Comments unrelated to this SPI. Editor aggrieved by CMD's actions in another SPI should take this elsewhere.

I think I'm going to step in and make an observer comment here. I think wider context is needed here. It clearly shows that CMD continuously gets into content disputes with various users on different topics and he doesn't like it when things doesn't go his way. Within just the last few days, he first started by accusing EuanHolewicz432 as being ToeSchmoker on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EuanHolewicz432, who he has a content dispute with as a sock, and it backfired as being unrelated. He then did it again with me, saying I'm connected with PunishedSnake95 and some random IP on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BenkovacZrinjski, and it backfired once more because it was literally done with no evidence. It was also an identical report made in January against me by an IP hopping vandal, which had already closed with no evidence. Now he's slapped my talk page with a Only warning: Harassment of other users, again with no further context provided. Again, who's actually the one harassing countless users and trying to lynch them as socks?

It really does comes off as bad faith behavior, to always resort to accusations of sockpuppetry whenever you have disagreements with someone over content. I do think admins should be a little more cautious whenever CMD inevitably attempts to accuse more users as sockpuppets just based on whoever he doesn't agree with or like the content shown. BenkovacZrinjski (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Had no idea I had even been mentioned in a sockpuppetry accusation... would have helped if Chipmunkdavis/"CMD" had tagged me in it in the first place. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BenkovacZrinjski, no comment on the two different cases you mention, but INTSF is an established sockfarm which CMD has been engaged with for quite some time, and about which he is particularly knowledgeable. None of the cases listed under this ongoing SPI have lacked evidence or diffs, and CMD has been right more often than not. If you have legitimate complaints about CMD's motivations, raise those at the appropriate venue (e.g., the actual SPI in question, or at an administrative noticeboard), rather than at an unrelated SPI. Grandpallama (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BenkovacZrinjski: you’re out of line, don’t attack an editor for doing solid sockpuppet investigations work just because they trod on your toe... I’m seeing a hard failure on your part to assume good faith and I see no actual indication that CMD "attempts to accuse more users as sockpuppets just based on whoever he doesn't agree with or like the content shown” and per WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS you should either provide a substantial quantity of explanatory material including diffs (as Grandpallama said preferably in a more appropriate venue) or retract that very strong assertion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I'm too personally invested in this, but is it fair to call these sockpuppet investigations "solid"? I had a (false) sockpuppet accusation levelled against me by Chipmunkdavis for making a single comment on a talk page. Not for me to comment on whether or not it was justified but it's certainly jumping the gun. If these other sockpuppet/meatpuppet accusations are in the same vein then to me it looks like throwing shit (excuse my vulgarity) at the wall and seeing what sticks. BenkovacZrinjski's comment, while perhaps strongly worded, hardly constitutes a personal attack. It is a valid point that they have raised. ToeSchmoker (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ToeSchmoker, wrong venue; please don't derail an unrelated SPI with these concerns. Grandpallama (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted but the fact remains said concerns may apply to this SPI. ToeSchmoker (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is concerning, and I think CMD's silence speaks for itself. Even on this very SPI, the users he had accused and pending admin involvement has already been "assumed" by CMD to be socks and their material removed/rewritten. If I'm wrong, and these people are indeed socks, I would had definitely recused myself from this. I noticed that CMD uses WP:LTA in his edit summary quite often. While there were articles where socks was previously involved, I realized many of these articles doesn't seem to have socks present. How deep does this behavior actually go really? Even with the flimsy evidence and the users scrutinized by admins, CMD still decided to revert their contributions anyways under accusations of supposed sockpuppetry activity. That is highly inappropriate, considering as that's not what such tags are intended for. It clearly shows he's attempting to resolve content disputes towards his favor by initially accusing the other user(s) as a sockpuppet(s) to reduce their legitimacy, either with or without evidence. And even as no evidence or any association with a sockmaster was proven, he still does it anyways. Is it really "out of line" to say this because I'm not sure I'm supposed to see it any other way. Who knows how many users over time have gotten the axe or had their stuff removed or rewritten to his satisfaction because of CMD's continued witch-hunts. BenkovacZrinjski (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BenkovacZrinjski is now reintroducing [109][110] the edits of already blocked [111][112] users, including the factual errors/source misrepresentations. I would like to ask that they are cautioned per WP:BLOCKEVASION that such actions give them "complete responsibility for the content", including the deliberate fabrications. CMD (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either you're feigning ignorance, or you're just not understanding about what I had said before that what you're doing is erroneously using tags such as "WP:LTA" and now "WP:BLOCKEVASION" to solve content disputes. You just fortuitously admitted in doing that very thing based on this response, by referring them as "factual errors/source misrepresentations". I am restoring it back to the way it was. Even so, the phrase "complete responsibility for the content" does not even apply here, due to the fact that your supposed accusations against others as socks (7 users in that list so far) in this investigation had not even concluded, hence me saying you're "jumping the gun". If you want to discuss about the content itself, there's the talk page for reason. Should LevitatePalantir, Huaxia, Einsof, Doraemon25, Seloloving (there's probably more users than that reverting your erroneous tags) also be "cautioned" based on your logic? BenkovacZrinjski (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BenkovacZrinjski, This is not where you raise your grievances. Take it elsewhere, like your talk page, his talk page or even WP:ANI. – robertsky (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robertsky Yeah I understand. It's just that CMD is continuously skirting around the topic over the concerns brought up, all dating back when he started to baselessly accuse me a sock (as well as others) a week ago. But such subsequent discussions shall occur elsewhere. BenkovacZrinjski (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Possible to the two users above:
Gardeenshine (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Red X Unrelated as far as checkuser evidence goes:
ThungKrug (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
 Stale - no available data:
AssertiveAnchovies (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
AzərbaycanQalsın (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
The two likely accounts have used the same IP. The possible account is in the same geolocation, different range, and similar common user agent. The other account doesn't appear related as far as technical data is concered. The rest of the accounts are stale and no checkuser data is available. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

25 April 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

LemonOneThousand appears to be a sockpuppet of Ineedtostopforgetting. I rved edits made by some sockpuppet users, two of which were made by sock of Ineedtostopforgetting. I received a message on my talk from them today and checked their contributions to find that they had rved my edits which I had tagged as "rv sockpuppet edit".

1. Edit 1 2. Edit 2

Ayuuy7 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

A clear duck. See also removal of Malaysia. CMD (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised nobody has closed this yet. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Muay thai was indeed misleading. You claim that it was removed "without explanation", and yet it had stood that way for 4 months. You can't just give vague edit summaries like that and not expect some pushback. It's only natural to see if you were exhibiting the same concerning behavior on other articles. And it definitely is kind of weird that your new edits were reverting sockpuppets on articles where different sockpuppets had historically fought each other. You seem really knowledgeable about it. LemonOneThousand (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

08 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits as previous socks, for ex. at Hillview, Singapore RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Redone below

Could the CU please check Govercon (talk · contribs) as well (already blocked), if they are recent enough to still have valid data. Thanks, CMD (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GuchenTrees is another one-off obvious duck. CMD (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duck one-off IP. CMD (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LayLay Uchiko is another one-off popping up to restore an edit of Govercon. CMD (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of more IPs that have popped up for one-off restorations, and a couple of accounts that have also done so. Al Habsirib's edit here is a restoration of [113]. CMD (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah and RoySmith: A really obvious busy period today, so would appreciate the users/IPs in this report could be quickly dealt with. Best, CMD (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis, Unfortunately, my SPI time allocation is limited these days, so I won't be able to give this the attention it deserves. My gut feeling from looking at the IP list above is that any IP blocking is going to be futile. If you could assemble a list of page titles that would benefit from semi (or higher) protection, I'd be happy to take care of that for you, but I won't have the time to do the investigation myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood RoySmith, and I have a similar gut feeling seems. There is a chance this may be a meat farm not a sock farm, as noted on AN. This would explain the variability in CU results, on top of established proxy use. On semi-protection, there is the potential that the list of pages may be anything I edit at the moment, but I hope the following more restricted list may suffice:
CMD (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Could you add China exclusion policy of NASA, Vending machine, and Grab (company) to the above? Thanks, CMD (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The appearance of Hepaegig makes me wonder if this is related to a current AN page case. Will post more there. CMD (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redoing for the still unblocked accounts.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

09 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Sadly I was optimistic with my semi-list. Starting new section given CU completed on the previous one. CMD (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few more, mix of harassment socks and one-off content socks. CMD (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More detail on still unblocked:

CMD (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I am not this user. I simply became aware that again Liu et al. was deleted. This was a typically behavior of the long term sock Sapah3 (see:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Asian_people&diff=968954171&oldid=967670609). I will repeat it here again that there is no reason to delete Liu et al. which is relevant for the section "Genetics" and was included already im summer 2020. It got occasionally deleted by sock accounts of Sapah3 for whatever reason (possibly racist views of an East Asian towards Southeast Asians, I do not know). Anyway, if necessary make a check user. I am concerned about the reliability of the article East Asian people if these study gets constantly deleted and that the agenda of Sapah3 gets supported by Admins. I hope this clarifies this misunderstanding. Have a nice day.46.125.250.127 (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Yeah, the proxy stuff makes all this pretty useless. User:RendTweno was just blocked by a colleague. And User:Realbasise. Damn those are some bad edits. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

First edits are to create talkpage and userpage. Third edit is to reinstate sock Telsho's preferred version at Singapore–United States relations and begin edit warring over it,[124][125] with intervening support from the IP.[126] Grandpallama (talk) 20:24, 18 May 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

06 June 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Miaoliwan is a new single edit user, trying to restore in part edits from a previous sock. CMD (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is on one of the usual addresses, and is restoring edits from 155.254.31.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). CMD (talk) 11:39, 6 June 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

02 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Another single purpose sock as per the normal recent pattern. Created to mostly restore these IP edits from two proxy IPs. In addition to the typical removal of generally positive-sounding information relating to South Korea and the adding of negative information, note the trollish vandalism mixed with POV of flipping word meaning (unlikely->likely) (previously seen for example in tightened->relaxed) and the dislike of the mention of Hong Kong and Taiwan combined with the preference for the phrase "East and Southeast Asia", which are typical hallmarks to look out for. CMD (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC) CMD (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally reactivated and back to attack proxy IPs too. The most simultaneous added above, if helpful. CMD (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Literally how does any of this information make me a sockpuppet of this person? This is pretty much all hearsay. Are you just accusing everyone you don't agree with and hope it just sticks? Wikipedia is not all about having "positive" or negative" information, but to present the facts as is. All the information presented was literally properly sourced. You can't just bruteforce your way into accusing others as socks just because you don't like what you read. LeeBukHyeon (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • This has LeeBukHyeon edit warring alongside two IPs that are confirmed proxies, highly consistent with INTSF's technical signature. They also miraculously found their way here to leave some aggressive comments, which is fitting, especially considering they weren't notified. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action – please block the sock indefinitely. You may also want to consider semiprotecting the page. The IP is also a confirmed proxy; won't do all that much good to block them though. If you do, I'd go for no longer than a week. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no connection with these IPs. Also "They also miraculously found their way here to leave some aggressive comments, which is fitting, especially considering they weren't notified." It's literally common sense from being reverted twice by Chipmunkdavis and looking at his contributions and finding out more as to why, and seeing he has reported my username on this sockpuppet investigation. Are you kidding me with this by using that as a reason? Defending yourself against accusations = being "aggressive"? LeeBukHyeon (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11 June 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Topic area and obsession with flags + traditional Mandarin checks out as does the purposeful confusion of one-China policy with the one-China principle[127][128]. Its also a very young and extremely precocious account (notice that their first real edit (which came some time after account creation) [129] was to a template). Also like Ineedtostopforgetting they navigate using the edit histories of editors and sock masters they dislike, hence how they found themselves on Freedom pineapples, Solomon Islands-Taiwan relations, and Norway–Taiwan relations ‎one right after the other. Even if its not Ineedtostopforgetting they’re being disruptive in all the ways that Ineedtostopforgetting was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

The following around to other articles is pretty typical behaviour here (eg. please see explicit note in the 25 April 2021 report above), as is the use of early adoption of twinkle, especially to warn editors (like so, for what it's worth previous example from Govercon), same POV regarding China and Hong Kong (HV: [130] Gov: [131]). Also notable is the perfunctory creation of a limited user page, (eg. [132][133]). The time of account creation slots in within the socks covered in the 09 May 2021 report (just over a week after this account, one day before this account). The single-focus of the account also matches recent trends. The catch is that it's not a unique POV, and Horse Eye's JBack has been followed by other sock farms before, so pointing to the right master is not obvious. Intrigued by the "unlikely" CU below however, that's closer than most socks here attain. CMD (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 June 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


The 그녀 안에 찌르다 user is a single-focus account created to partially restore some edits by an already blocked proxy IP. Note the wording is different to avoid detection, but it's hitting the exact same parts of the article, looking to push the same POV. CMD (talk) 06:23, 14 June 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

18 June 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


There are almost no edits here that don’t fit the Ineedtostopforgetting pattern... They first appeared in December 2020 and spent their first 25 edits "Rv WP:NPOV edits” and "Rv IP vandal.” (extremely WP:PRECOCIOUS). Since then they’ve continued to edit war over the exact same changes in a direct continuation of other Ineedtostopforgetting socks. They’ve also spent time stalking CMD and even participated on this investigation page. Basically no productive edits of any kind, clearly fits the standard Ineedtostopforgetting not here model. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Again, suggest a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I've been accused of being a sock numerous times, which was initially started by a disruptive IPv6 troll colocating to Taiwan (2402:7500...) on China/Taiwan articles here, and this report is pretty much identical. This IP was also constantly harassing my talk page, as seen on my talk page history. I had reported some ranges of that IP before a few months ago and it was initially blocked, though being an IPv6 makes it hard to keep track. Back to this report, it's clear the HEJ is attempting to accuse other users as being sockpuppets whenever they don't adhere to their POV. The reason I was even on this SPI was to defend myself from bad-faith users like you. BenkovacZrinjski (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: Interesting that this report was literally made on the same day as this disruptive IP returning to disrupt and hound me on other articles I contribute. With the IP colocating to Taiwan + HEJ major contributions relating to Taiwan, it makes wonder who the real sockpuppet is. BenkovacZrinjski (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, we can note that these accounts seem to be able to master a lot of editing skills and tools just after registration.And they can make a lot of edits in a short time.
Refer this,Special:Contributions/Drill_it may be one of them. Also refer Registered time of Drill it and Registered time of HypVol,their registered time only differs by 1 day.

61.224.10.134 (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a case of casting aspersions around here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DarkMatterMan4500: casting aspersions is when its done outside of the proper venue, this here would appear to be the appropriate forum in which to voice these concerns. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DarkMatterMan4500: Casting aspersions is definitely the right word for it. You aren't wrong. I'm honestly not surprised anymore that HEJ has not replied to my response but yet had the time to defend a WP:SPA IP only making comments on this very SPI due to the fact that it aligns with his POV, and also colocating to the same Taiwanese city as the disruptive ipv6, and yet ironically had the gall to accuse others of having "used his companions" for a "good" and "bad person" with no evidence but mere hearsay. The SPA IP also tried to muddle the investigation on HEJ's side by linking me with a bunch of different accounts, also with no evidence. If that isn't casting aspersions, I wonder what HEJ's definition of it actually is. As I've mentioned previously, textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. If this ipv6 was making comments against HEJ's POV, do you seriously think he would make a response like that to you? Exactly. BenkovacZrinjski (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: And here's clear evidence that this Taiwanese IP is pretty much the ipv6, they made a post here with a new IP a mere 2 hours after the ipv6 was blocked by Ivanvector for disruptive editing. Wonder why HEJ conveniently left that out. BenkovacZrinjski (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, it does look like you were casting aspersions... This is not the proper forum to address claims of bad faith editing nor is it the proper forum to make claims about sockpuppetry which do not involve Ineedtostopforgetting... As you can see from WP:ASPERSIONS location is at the heart of the policy, it has to be in the right place. The IP makes valid points and I’m not above using long term disruptive editors against each other, Ineedtostopforgetting seems to enjoy it when they can provide evidence to get a Sapah3 sock blocked and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I would also note that I have barely interacted with this account, how are you so sure that you know my POV? Can you also clarify whether by "The reason I was even on this SPI was to defend myself from bad-faith users like you.” you meant the IP or myself? Its a personal attack either way but I’d like to know whether I should be personally offended by it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Special:Contributions/BenkovacZrinjski want me to add any comments, I think WP:MEAT may be closer to the facts. But it may also be farther away from the facts.
If Special:Contributions/BenkovacZrinjski want anyone to present evidence against using multiple IPs as bad guys and using multiple accounts as good guys, the duck test may be the only thing they can do.
We can set a hypothesis ,there is a person who lives in China and wants to change a page to the way he wants. He can find his friends who live in the United States and friends who live in Taiwan, and achieve the goal through his friends who live in different countries.
This hypothesis may be wrong, but this hypothesis may happen.But why does the hypothesis seem credible?Can someone explain why 27% of the edits of Special:Contributions/BenkovacZrinjski have the same editing content as Special:Contributions/HypVol.Anyway, 27% is too high.
To add a special question, why both of them had disputes with Chipmunkdavis. Special:Contributions/BenkovacZrinjski even made a lot of revenge editing for this.These revenge editing are 15% of Special:Contributions/BenkovacZrinjski total edits. (27+15=42) If we count the number of non-article edits, we can get 28%. (42+28=70) So we can confirm one thing, the purpose of Special:Contributions/BenkovacZrinjski is very single and obvious.
70% of edits on Special:Contributions/BenkovacZrinjski are used to edit wars and revenge edits.61.224.12.26 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS:Perhaps Special:Contributions/BenkovacZrinjski had other accounts and had personal grievances with Chipmunkdavis many years ago,like Special:Contributions/Ineedtostopforgetting.Well, here is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting.But I think reading Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BenkovacZrinjski/Archive may be closer to the truth.61.224.12.26 (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 July 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Another single-purpose sock. Its edits here have the classic focus on Queenstown, removal of non-English, removal of references to other places to focus on Singapore. Usual misleading edit summary. Partially covering previous edits on this page by an IP. Also back to uploading copyrighted images. CMD (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy IP 159.196.169.112 active at the same time, on another previously targeted page. Bringing up here in case those more familiar with proxy blocking practice want to assess. CMD (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Blablubbs, I thought that might be the case and don't usually report here given previous instances, but thought it worth bringing up to show the timing. CMD (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: My mistake, IP, Ert. For similar examples in other pages, please see the 10 August 2021 report below. CMD (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Absolutely ridiculous and baseless accusations. All I did was improve the article and add a recent image of the headquarters, and was responded by reverts by you for no absolute reason. "focus on Queenstown" Where do you think the headquarters are located? "removal of non-English" That's not an official name. "Removal of references" I literally removed 0 references. "Also back to uploading copyrighted images" Do you have any evidence of this? Back to what? I'm fairly confident Wikipedia has measures in place against actual copyrighted images. Why the hell would I add a copyrighted image? Ertyea (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

23 July 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


One of the burner accounts left unblocked from the 8 May 2021 report that Blablubbs asked to be re-reported if they re-emerged. Given it was created awhile ago, it made a bunch of edits to obtain autoconfirmed status and then returned to an old obsession at Disneyland with the Death Penalty. CMD (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm just shocked nobody's responded to this part in a while. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

04 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Content on Singaporean national identity article created is written similarly to the series of edits made by socks on pages related to Singaporean nationality. – robertsky (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Re request for behavioural analysis, this account shows the typical sleeper pattern of early creation and then being left for awhile. Its reactivation followed the usual pattern of making a series of minor edits to get autoconfirmed (see the 23 July 2021 report above for another example). It did this to create the Singaporean national identity article. This article is the usual topic matter for this user, and what I find particularly telling as it is quite common with this farm, is that the sources in the article bear little resemblance to the text they purportedly support. CMD (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

10 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


This is an obvious duck, recreating the Singapore model (created by the proxy IP and with the usual subsequent ShelteredCook hiding) as Singapore economic model. Another obvious sleeper and then getting around autoconfirmed, like in the 04 August 2021 case. Both should be WP:G5ed, with the redirect being recreated if desirable. CMD (talk) 05:10, 10 August 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

10 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Feels like it's been awhile since there's been a non single-use account. This obvious duck began with its first edit, on 6 June 2021, having the usual removal of place names that aren't Singapore, and the highlighting of Singapore. Note as well the link to the Downtown Core article. (See [134] for a similar edit.) Their next edit, second ever, was to create a template which includes an article previously edited by another sock, and then another template, which grouped together articles including some previously grouped by a sock (see the See alsos). These were then added to a bunch of articles. This pattern of creation and spam mirrors that of this template and this template. They then went on to add "Singapore" and "multinational" to these companies ([135][136][137], see [138][139][140] from past accounts). Their next edit unrelated to the templates was this one, note the classic deliberately misleading edit summary ("Fix broken links") and the addition of a portal bar, something beloved by other socks (eg. previously mentioned diff). Other edits include a typical adding many tags and multiple issues without explanation [141] (I can find diffs from previous socks if needed but I really don't think they're needed at this point). They soon return to the favoured topic of South Korea, joining a content dispute to remove "highly" (which they'd previously tried with another sock) and warning with twinkle.

Not going through all of their edits, but notable later ones I've seen include another Downtown core focused one, with classic misleading minor tag. One bingo-fulfilling edit is this one, which includes the classic addition of the "city-state" adjective and the removal of "Southeast" before Asia and a Singapore portal bar and the misleading edit summary and usual blatant pushing of some particular POV. This edit was getting involved with the Awanama sock farm which they have a beef with (previous eg, no comment on the validity of their claim). Most recently they've been busy making sure the Jajangmyeon article specifies the noodles are definitely from China and not from South Korea, taking that crucial baton from previous socks. CMD (talk) 17:40, 10 August 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

11 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Edit history. First action is to create frivolous SPI investigation case. Revert User:Seloloving's changes with edit summaries of accusation of whitewashing and open SPI investigation case against seloloving as a sock for INSTF for whitewashing. Feels like an attempt to establish he is not INSTF and then accuse others of INSTF. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:56, 11 August 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

20 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

A new so far single-focus account. Appeared to make this edit to the Shopee article. The edit continues the e-shopping focus of the just-blocked Ekuftle (talk · contribs), including touching on the Ninja Van company within the wider Shopee topic, as well as partially restoring this old ShelteredCook edit. Also hides behind minor tag, seeks to remove non-Singapore countries (in this case the Philippines). Requesting CU in case of other new accounts.

Also included above is a proxy IP which is also a duck. Leaving to more experienced to determine if it is the sort of proxy worth blocking, it is understood that as an IP it will not be part of the CU. CMD (talk) 02:54, 20 August 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

09 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

These accounts/IPs were created to disrupt Lee Kuan Yew, edit warring with Seloloving. This continues previous edit warring by already blocked JPETSIX (talk · contribs), on an article previously edited by socks including Telsho and ShelteredCook. Teefeelring's sole edit was a precocious revert coupled with standard minor tag, later re-edit warred with the proxy 78 IP listed. 5979GTYU on the other hand was created to make a new template and category, which is both precocious and replicates the early edits of JoeFondeau (talk · contribs). CMD (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

The situation here may be a little confusing, as INSTF is assuming multiple identities. In the example by JPETSIX, the user was removing the same section in which I later judged was not adequately sourced and removed myself. In the case of Teefeelring, the user was reinstating the content instead. While I always assume good faith, it's clear INSTF is trolling and just trying to muddy the waters.

As for the LKY infobox template, a previous INSTF sock had created such a template before, but as it has been deleted, I am unable to judge any behavioral evidence in the code. Seloloving (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I knew that template looked very familiar. CMD (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

21 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Significant overlap with Ineedtostopforgetting socks... new account is treading the old stomping ground of Singapore, Taiwan, Football/Soccer, they even continued to try and shape the lead for South Korea[142]. Behavioral similarities as well (including a continuation of a feud with Dosafrog), exhibits classic Ineedtostopforgetting precociousness and user talk page escalations. For instance by this accounts second edit [143] the summary demonstrated a deep well of knowledge with the use of terms of art like blanket revert. Their appearance at Maplewashing, which was created by the Ineedtostopforgetting sock Telsho as a jab at the sockmaster Waskerton, is also highly suspect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Yep, definitely them. Usual adding Singapore everywhere and lying about it. Check out this creative edit summary. CMD (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The classic INTSF Undo+. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

24 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Another single-focus account. Created to restore previous edits such as this one by Telsho. Requesting CU and block given usual pattern of re-activating sleepers. CMD (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the BelfastBrooks account which I previously thought abandoned has been reactivated. (See the usual obsession over labelling dishes as Singaporean, early edits to an article created by another sock, and lying in edit summaries to add Singapore.) CMD (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 122 IP is an obvious duck, with usual edits lying in their edit summaries to add Singapore and remove Malaysia. CMD (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Not making edits for a few months does not imply abandonment, CMD. Users can lurk for extended periods of time without malice. Still, I have some articles on my watch list this entire time, and I see you're currently on a mass revert spree over a bunch of supposed sockpuppets. Nevertheless, I have to make my own comment here since you've started to involve me. I'd like for you to be more specific with your accusations of me, especially by calling me "obsessive" and being a "liar", because I'm not restoring content of any of these socks, and I've always explained clearly on my edit summaries of my edits. I was reverting a problematic user making a WP:OR edit, and ironically enough, was indeed doing what you're accusing me of, except with Malaysia on a slew of their other edits. As INSTF is presumably from Singapore, it still does not explicitly imply that a majority of other users/IPs that make edits on the Singapore WikiProject *are* INTSF. This would end up being extremely harmful in the long run. Per your talk page, you seem to be subscribed to WikiProject Malaysia, so I really hope you're not guising these SPIs to push your own point of view. BelfastBrooks (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to revert you on Safety sign because sockpuppetry would have to involve actually providing two differing diffs involving the sockmaster, similarly explained here for a different SPI investigation, and calling it "obvious duck" is a weird argument to make. I've looked into the edit history, and INSTF and their socks has never made any edits on there, so I'm perplexed as to why you think WP:BLOCKEVASION was an appropriate edit summary to revert that 122 IP, which was most likely just some guy who only wanted to make an improvement to that article. INSTF can't possibly be everywhere at once. BelfastBrooks (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

21 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Per standard Ineedtostopforgetting we now have retribution accounts as a result of the above discussion. @Jurtaa: I apologize for you having to pick up much of this mess, I hope this provides some explanation of the why and the who. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Adding. CMD (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if someone could revdel [144] under WP:CRD 2/3 that would be for the best. CMD (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Regarding your post, who is AestheticalBeacon? CMD (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Aesthetical Beacon with a space. Gotcha, sorry. CMD (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

This one is a mix of attack sock and traditional sock, this has to be their millionth time trying to do this [145]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Added Nertztyo, a rv sock like AntivandPH50. CMD (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

This is an obvious behavioural cluster that has been active for the past month on Straits Settlements. The 122 IP was first with this edit, which removed Penang from the capital note to leave only Singapore, altered the |today= field to put Singapore at the start and Malaysia at the end, added "Far East" to the description (appears to be a new twist on the previous obsession of adding "East Asia" to Singapore articles, including previously on this one here), adding various Singapore-puffery to the lead, and adding the Singapore topics template while removing the Malaysia topics template. (See also their other edit with a classic tagbomb on a Malaysia-related article, following usual pattern of tagging Malaysia-related articles and untagging Singapore-related articles.) The 175 IP continued those edits, changing the language pipe from British English to Singapore English and editing the new note and lead puffery added by the 122 IP. The 60 IP came next with this edit, which among other things removes the statement in the lead that Singapore was part of Malaysia, sought to directly link Christmas Island with Singapore (a minor obsession for this editor which can be seen with previous edits to the Christmas Island article), and hilariously moving the Singapore topics template higher in the list of topics. LucaszDigg is the most recent, further editing the language note added and edited by the IPs, then editing the body to put Singapore at the top as the "capital" (note previous removal of Penang from infobox by IP), with more puffery added. Note the editing of Penang to make it seem less important (again related to removal from infobox by IP), while also editing the Malacca section to downplay its prominence, and another removal of a Malaysia template while adding a Singapore portal. There's a few more things here and there I'd be happy to communicate via email, but even on the above these are all 100% ducks. CU request on the account to see if there are others.(Previous socks that edited this page include Nielamgros (talk · contribs), Blitzung (talk · contribs), Facteker (talk · contribs), Lise Hereford (talk · contribs), Feinoa (talk · contribs), and the namesake Ineedtostopforgetting (talk · contribs).) CMD (talk) 03:42, 5 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

10 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

This was one of the accounts that was included in the 08 May 2021 report and picked up by CU but not blocked as it was thought page protection would be better. It has reactivated, as they all tend to do, to again redo its previous edit first done by surfshark IPs: [146][147]. As stated in the previous report, "Note the typical POV editing, eg. replacing "In Singapore, opposition politicians and trade unionists were detained in prison without trial before in the 1960s and early 1970s" with "The political arena during the early years of Singapore's self-governance and subsequent independence was relatively chaotic"." CMD (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been checked and closed by CaptainEeK in the #21 September 2021 section above, deactivating CU request here, probably good to close. CMD (talk) 09:57, 19 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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting/Archive/1&oldid=1142567243"