Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waldemar15/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Waldemar15


Waldemar15

26 July 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Enemyusuar has been here for a while, with an interest in Mexico, Mexican wrestling, and Mole (including Mole (sauce), which they moved to Mole (marinated)). The other account is recent (23 July), and shows the same interests. Specifically, both have been editing Lucha Libre, a Mexican wrestler's article; the most damning evidence, however, derives from Mole (sauce): Enemyusuar moved it unilaterally and ungrammatically to Mole (marinated) in this edit; the day before, Yaleokine had made a similar strange and ungrammatical edit here on the dab page for Mole, changing "(sauce)" to "(marinated)".

In addition, both have been editing Místico, making the same edit: Enemyusuar and Yaleokine (reverting my edit). Also, for a while I thought that Rsuodiongan (talk · contribs) might be part of the family (considering this edit, reverted by me, and restored by Enemyusuar a half an hour later, but right now I think that was just Enemyusuar paying me back (as they did here). At any rate, I'd appreciate CU to check into Enemyusuar and Yaleokine; perhaps the CU or the clerk are inclined to include Rsuodiongan (who has unrelated Philippine interests and is indef-blocked as a VOA) as well. Favonian is the blocking admin who put Enemyusuar out of commission for a week for general jerkiness, and Rsuodiongan indefinitely. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
To clarify, if you hit Rsuodiongan please disclose it but I wouldn't necessarily go out of the way. He looks like an isolated case of disruption. NativeForeigner Talk 22:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above Enemyusuar (talk · contribs) and Yaleokine (talk · contribs) are   Confirmed as the same user. The accounts however are part of a larger sock farm that   Likely includes:
with Waldemar15 (talk · contribs) (recently returned from a 14 months hiatus) as the sockmaster.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22 August 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Also block evasion since Scalkanes was blocked for another 18 hours from the time this edit was made Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three more unconstructive edits just now. Could we block this account now please? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
If edit warring is a concern, please lock the article to new users. I'm not sure how to deal this editor's incorrect and unexplained additions without reverting them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


24 August 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucha_libre&diff=569938266&oldid=569795239 was also made by known socks of Waldemar15 and the time-line is right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
04 September 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucha_libre&diff=571557833&oldid=571187272 and WP:QUACK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with recent sockpuppets: Kairksouky, Kleekejia and Scalkanes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
05 September 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

I noticed that this user reported Walter Görlitz for reverting edits by a sockpuppet. This makes me think that this is another sockpuppet of Waldemar15 due to how his/her sockpuppets have focused on that article. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
05 September 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
12 September 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
9 October 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
Comments by other users
edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
Veinkeyek tagged and blocked indef. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15 October 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
Comments by other users
edit

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

I just reverted the sock's edits, and realized, if the editor is intent on adding content, why not just add it? I then restored a cleaned version of the material. I trust that the protracted edit war will now have no reason to continue on those two articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the user's edits are so tricky that he only edits to autoconform his accounts. I don't know if he knows that WP:VE exists and his reverts of my reverts will be notified to me, but Waldemar has proved no intentions to improve the project, but to damage it, through WP:DE and through multiple copyvios here and in Commons. If he wants to "add content", he must do so with his original account. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Checkuser note: These accounts are   Likely to   Confirmed as Waldemar15:
5 November 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
Comments by other users
edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit


07 November 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

[3] is the same as confirmed socks [4] and [5] Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
03 December 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Fails WP:DUCK. Compare autoconfirmation through talk page and the insertation of File:Ciudad de México Distrito Federal.jpg as a Walder sock. CU may be required as Walder creates multiple accounts at the same time and has been a few weeks since last CU was performed. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 09:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Scootklums (talk · contribs) is   Confirmed along with:

There's a pretty substantial rangeblock now in place, hopefully this will help limit account creation.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14 December 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Editor's edits at [6] are the same as several known socks, most notably [7]. WP:QUACK Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Fails awfully WP:DUCK. Nothing but reverts of my reverts of Walder socks[8][9][10][11], etc. CU may be needed as Walder creates many accounts at the same time (see last time) © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 05:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

  Administrator note Blocked and tagged, but given the sock farm which was found last time could a CU take a look, plus maybe block the IP/s? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17 May 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

I've already blocked and tagged. Style is the same. The amount of crossover is too much to be a coincidence. The sock was created the same day that the master received a one week block (3rd time for edit warring). The master was already indef blocked by me earlier in the week, 4th time edit warring. Reporting to create file and close, or review at your leisure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
01 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Similar editing patterns in general, this particular edit with same effect and similar comment, which Oglesruins originally edit warred over. Starebube has recently been warned over edit warring and Hartsols was involved in warring over article renaming. In both cases, similar to Oglesruins, no evidence of use of talk pages. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Very obvious - passes the duck test with flying colours. Same edits and same problem of WP:NOTHERE that got them blocked in the first place...that is... Dishonest and gaming behavior, editing as a battleground and no interest in working collaboratively.-- Moxy (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
05 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Aspentone is continuing where Starebube left off, particularly at Santa Lucía Riverwalk (Starebube, Aspentone) and at Portal:Nudity/Selected picture (Starebube, Aspentone) John of Reading (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. So we now have many socks,,,, can we get a range block...if not we will be here forever. -- Moxy (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
08 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
New sockpuppet named User:Udderrukor. Can we get a rang block this editor is going to keep doing this. Does not even try to hide. as seen here back to the same edits as master account User:Oglesruins -- Moxy (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another sock blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: The clearest connection is Oglesruins and Udderrukor's move of Rubén Omar Romano. After that, the connection is a bit more tenuous. Moxy reverted edits to Sport in Mexico by previous socks. Udderrukor then reverted back. All of the accounts have an obsession with the federal districts of Mexico, but the edit history of Mexico City is so extensive, that it is difficult to parse out specific matching edits.

The connection between Udderrukor and Kindpoem is clear. Once I had blocked Udderrukor, Kindpoem appeared and reverted Sport in Mexico, San Cristóbal de las Casas, and El Chavo del Ocho after I and Thelmadatter reverted the previous sock's edits. Their habit of creating their talk page is also rather unusual [12][13]. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  •   Additional information needed -   Clerk declined. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following are highly   Likely:
16 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Yet another - Contributions are the exact same as previous ID's. This can been seen at Sport in Mexico: Revision history (same edit as User:Kindpoem, User:Udderrukor, User:Razesuds and User:Oglesruins) There is also Mexico City: Revision history with the same problem. -- Moxy (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Procedural report before I block as WP:DUCK. Ran across this edit at Pau Gasol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which matches Oglesruins' from before[14][15]. Additionally, common interest in editing as past socks with recent edits at Argentine Football Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Mexican Spanish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), National Autonomous University of Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Mexico City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and others.—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC) —Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
​​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To add my two cents, the first group matches directly to a majority if not all the archive. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Administrator note All accounts identified via check user are blocked. Users with edits have also been tagged. If we are going to rename the case, Aspentone seems to be the oldest account, created on March 6, 2013.—Bagumba (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


See history of Portal:Nudity/Selected picture; the edit by Uptonvexes is the same as the one by Starebabe and Aspentone.

Could that image be added to one of the blacklists? John of Reading (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit


27 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Yet another new account making the same edit at Portal:Nudity/Selected picture. The edit by Loftclt is the same as the one by Starebabe and Aspentone. John of Reading (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit


28 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


sock puppet was created after another sock puppet User:Reefhesse was blocked and continues doing the same changes (edit warring) to the page as previous puppet had been doing despite warning on his talk page. Yxifix (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He made a revision concerning football logo originally uploaded by sockmaster Oglesruins. Yxifix (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit


29 June 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

The talk page is entirely constructed by Beckyknow1 and they appear to be confessing to being a sockpuppet here. Their only other edits appear to be vandalism and copying their user page from here. I am One of Many (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
06 July 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


See the history of Portal:Nudity/Selected picture; Palmp has made the same edit as several other Oglesruins sockpuppets. John of Reading (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
06 July 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


See the history of Argentine Football Association; Oglesruins's sockpuppets Aspentone and Stackskin, both of which are now blocked indefinitely, have performed exactly the same page moves and edits in the past. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • These two are   Confirmed as each other, but   Inconclusive to anything else due to proxy abuse:
14 July 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


User has been moving pages like his previous times without explaining. After I gave a reason why it's wrong the user said "please, do not start" like if it knew who I was. The user also uses insulting comments in summaries like this and this which other previously blocked accounts have done as well like here, here and here. The user has also uploaded images like it has in blocked accounts. GoPurple'nGold24 00:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

  • This new account has moved some pages to bad titles including moving a category page that is now just an empty cat. Have asked at "Move request" to have these fixed (restored) -- Moxy (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
29 July 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

User has written similar comments as in previous Oglesruins sockpuppet blocked accounts like here. User is also doing other Oglesruins sockpuppet edits such as making new categories and fixing grammar. GoPurple'nGold24 03:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit


29 July 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Has been doing the same edits for the same articles that previously blocked Oglesruins sockpuppets have done. GoPurple'nGold24 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit


30 July 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Doing same type of edits and writing same comments on edit summaries that previously blocked Oglesruins accounts have done. GoPurple'nGold24 02:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
7 August 2014
edit

I had noticed the protection of the pages Mexico City and Liga MX, but I thought they were protected due to another sockpuppeteer. In this case Oglesruins is just another sockpuppet of the long-term Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waldemar15. Based upon what I've seen in the archive, Oglesruins' accounts have edited pages related to Mexico like Tuxtla Gutiérrez (protection log), UNAM-related pages, including the Template:National Autonomous University of Mexico (Oglesruins vs. Waldemar15's sock); the way Waldemar15 autoconfirm his accounts: Kravekoors vs. Oglesruins. The removal of content from Sport in Mexico, edits to City Club (wholesale club). Based upon behavior, I'm requesting Oglesruins' case to be merged with Waldemar's case. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 18:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
16 August 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Has re-instated edits made by Oglesruins at Portal:Nudity/Intro and Portal:Nudity/box-header John of Reading (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
19 August 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


This new user has also re-instated the Oglesruins edits at Portal:Nudity/Intro and Portal:Nudity/box-header John of Reading (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
11 May 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


User has been blocked various times before. The user is known for moving many pages including Mexican football/soccer stadium pages like he/she did here recently and here in February 2014. The user also uses similar insulting comments like Oglesruins use to do, like here in 2014 and here recently. Here is another similar edit summaries:May 2014 and recently GoPurple'nGold24 04:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • The following accounts (including a boatload of sleepers) are   Confirmed as Oglesruins (from the archive) and have been blocked:
05 July 2015
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


User is re-doing the edits that other it did that I reverted just like other Waldemar15 accounts have done. The user is using the same type of insults it usually does. Like here, here, and here. GoPurple'nGold24 23:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

11 August 2020

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

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

User:Sinkplil reverted an edit of mine citing Black Lives Matter as the reason, which is just strange as it's irrelevant to the edits reverted. See [17]. I then noticed that editor User:Urbanuntil posted a question on my Commons page about the image(s)(scroll to bottom) that were removed from the Immigration policy of Donald Trump article. I noticed that Urbanuntil has been blocked from EN WP as being a sockpuppet of User:Waldemar15. I have a feeling that Sinkplil, which edits similar subjects as both Waldemar15 and Urbanuntil, is also a sock of the same user. Missvain (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also just looked at the archive for the Waldemar15 investigation and it seems similar to other user complaints - weird insults and reverting content. Editing about similar food content, etc. Missvain (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Examples from Missvain
  1. Jjzt97 and Waldemar15 share a very similar edit history despite the period of time between Waldemar15's block and Jjzt97's work, per [18].
  2. Example two: Waldemar15 used to edit and move redirects frequently, examples include: [19][20]. You will also see Sinkplil doing the same: [21] and Jjzt97 doing the same here.
  3. Jjzt97 and Zama15 edit the same footballers per evidenced here
  4. Sinkplil, Picklesplitilyzr and Janitor102 have all edited Mexico City. They all seem to edit captions of photographs - again, that's what brought me to Sinkplil's attention in the first place. Examples of various caption edits by Janitor102 (who has been blocked as a sock): [22]

Comments by other users

edit

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

@Missvain: What??!!, oh s... --Sinkplil (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain, SPIs need to be filed under the name of the earliest account (the master), which is this case is Waldemar15. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't sure what to do about that and clearly missed that in the instructions! Thanks! Missvain (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain, you need to make a compelling case with WP:DIFFs (the more the better), for each assertion that you make and each account that you allege. Don't tell the clerk/CU to "look over here". Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •   Additional information needed - Given that nobody involved in this case has edited in 5 years, it's going to be difficult to show socking.

  Check declined by a checkuser. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:

  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Waldemar15/Archive&oldid=1142508581"