Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SheryOfficial

SheryOfficial (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
This SPI case may involve cross-wiki abuse. Please consider reporting the results on Meta; checkusers can send an email to the interwiki checkuser mailing list if required.


16 July 2024

[edit]

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk oder checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

DK was created on July 5, while K a day later. DK's username refers to Ismail Kemal, and they have a picture of Kemal on their userpage as well. DK opened an RM on Ismail Kemal (to move the article from the then name Ismail Qemali to the current Ismail Kemal) and the only one who !voted there was K. They both stayed imactive for a few days, and after the RM was closed, K put a "Retired" tag on their own userpage, as if the only reason the account was created was to !vote on the RM opened by DK. It is clear that these two accounts are breaching the rules. They either have been used by the same person, or by two friends in off-wiki coordination. IMO, a CU can make things clearer. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After another editor accused DK and K of socking, K removed the comment from the talk page [1], and later that day put the "Retired" tag on their own userpage. Both accounts have the same topic interests and use Visual Editor. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They use similar expressions. DK "as they highlight", DK "as highlighted", K "as I have highlighted". K "your claim that... is completely baseless", DK "your claim is baseless that". Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The following para was merged in from a duplicate section, see Special:Diff/1235040654 for original. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two accounts not more than 12 days old doing the exactly same kind of edits and supporting eachother in proposals just like at [[2]], one a turkish account and the other a badly google translated name of "Kemal's lover". After pointing out that i suspect Sockpuppetry the second user wrote "nvm i quit this discussion" [[3]], and then "retired" on his User Page [[4]] after just 10 days. Also i suspect the main account DashnorKemalit to have other sock accounts and possibly evading Ban since knowing a lot of users that an 12days old account editor is expected to know as it is shown in this edit (asking for support for the same discussion that was "supported" by the second suspected account Kürkisk [[5]] RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Clerk assistance requested: please merge this into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial, as the two accounts are  Possible (same IP different UA) but Kurkisk is  Confirmed to Shery. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17 July 2024

[edit]

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Geolocates to Pakistan, where SheryOfficial is from. Very similar edit and exact same edit summary [6] [7]. Here the IP restored [8] a edit by SheryOfficial [9]. IP also makes use Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests [10] just like SheryOfficial has done countless times. Just generally doesnt edit like a new user at all. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Added DashnorKemalit as well per RoyalHeritageAlb's comment (thanks), since they did work together with SheryOfficial's sock [11]. And they don't remotely edit like a new user. One of their first edits was a move request [12] and they kinda restored SheryOfficial's edit [13], compare it to my previous revert [14]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 2: Added Ibn Chishti, this one is obvious. Reverted me to restore SheryOfficial's edit while accusing me of being a sock of some random user [15]. Also not the first time SheryOfficial has reverted others and randomly accused them of being a sock [16]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 3: Also added 182.191.149.163 and 37.111.149.63 just so we can keep track of the IPs they use. More or less restored SheryOfficials edit here [17] [18], compare [19]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DashnorKemalit just openly admitted to being a sock of SheryOfficial [20]. Can we please immediately indef them and do a CheckUser? They no doubt have other socks lying around as per usual. A rollback of all their edits would also be appreciated. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

User:DashnorKemalit also did the same type of edits that this IP user has done before. [[21]] this as well shows Pakistan as location. So adding this up to other clues that Kürkisk and DashnorKemalit are "helping" eachother i suspect this confirms that DashnorKemalit is a sock as well.RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone explained to this guy why sock puppetry is so detrimental to WP and consensus? Kowal2701 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not familiar with the history but might it be more constructive to give them a route back to using their main account and comprehensively explain sock puppetry and it’s impacts? This constant create and block must be wasting a lot of editors’ time and he doesn’t seem to understand Kowal2701 (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, another user and I initially assumed this was a routine case of sockpuppetry involving a newcomer. However, after three days, it became evident that this incident involved a seasoned sockpuppeteer. After It was observed that the primary account associated with this user is six years old, suggesting a profound understanding of sockpuppetry rules, albeit with apparent disregard for Wikipedia's community impact. The user has justified the use of sock accounts citing a permanent block on their original account, claiming intent to contribute positively. Nevertheless, recent activity, such as using one account to propose and another to endorse the same proposal a week ago, raises concerns about compliance with Wikipedia guidelines.
[[22]] RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don’t think this user understands. If you look at User:SheryOfficial talk page and their unblock request, it is clear that the institution of guidelines and policies are not intuitive to them, and the lack of mention of their previous impact on the community indicates that this is not something that has been appreciated or thought deeply about. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They think that as long as they hold good and benign motivations, then they can’t do anything wrong, and rules against what they’re doing don’t take them personally into account Kowal2701 (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that this is habitual, and if given back their main account, the user may be tempted when in a dispute to engage in sock puppetry again. The harmful impact would need to be made very clear Kowal2701 (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a pretty recent conversation between me and SheryOfficial's sock (can't remember which account, they create so many), it seems to be a mix of addiction + not understanding the impact and timewasting almost 6 years of socking have. They expect that they can just get unblocked almost immediately despite creating hundreds of socks for almost 6 years. They also think that they have good motivations, but they certainly don't show it in many of their edits, showing signs of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing/pov pushing, such as the recent mess they caused at Ismail Qemali through abusing the Move Request system with two of their socks [23]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it’s worth a go discussing this with him on the premise of trying to understand his pov, establish relations and explain the importance of rules and guidelines, with a route to get his main account back. Establishing relations is the key bit Kowal2701 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP can be very combative and cold, and given his history it’s likely he’s not community minded here and not incentivised to prioritise community Kowal2701 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ik admins would never normally get personal but this seems like an extreme case Kowal2701 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did somewhat try that in that convo. But they seem to have ignored it, since they just repeated themselves here "....I tried to request an unblock attempt few months ago but my accounts just keep getting globally locked, that's why i gotta sock again and again." HistoryofIran (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, SheryOfficial seems to be well aware of WP:Standard Offer, but they couldn't even wait for that, being deceptive as usual "Thanks for replying! After going through WP:Standard Offer, I am ready to cooperate and wait for more than six months, a year, two or perhaps more. Again, cheers for replying!" HistoryofIran (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If he is just gonna make us look like fools then yeah, status quo is fine. If it is an addiction then the standard offer probably shouldn’t apply, and we should start small with small rewards and regular communication Kowal2701 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, a small reward after a month could be that he gets his main account but with content blocks and blocked from making RMs and RfCs Kowal2701 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imo I think that is too generous for a person who has been socking non-stop for almost 6 years. I don't think we should make concessions just because SheryOfficial is unable to stop. If they are indeed addicted, then I hope the best for them and that they get out of it. But they need to do that through outside help, not us making concessions. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s understandable, regardless further communication is needed imo. Punishment is only effective and constructive if the person understands what they did and why they’re being punished Kowal2701 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as i want to sympathise with the editor,reminding me my first blocks when i was a newcomer and had no idea with what Sockpuppetry was, this user used one of his accounts to "approve" the proposal of his another account just a week ago. Even trying to larp as an Albanian and pinging editors who had edit warred with some of the voters on that proposal just because they voted against his opinion. Attempting canvassing and trying to rig the voting process. After learning that this user has 6 years of Wikipedia experience i cant think of any way how this user might contribute in any good intentions in any way. So even if we dont count the Sockpuppetry his edits are not meant to be NPOV and cause more problems that have to be cleaned afterwards than benefits.RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we made clear the impact his behaviour has on WP and the community, including wasting admins' time, maybe he'd stop or engage properly and correct his behaviour. Or he might just not have any respect for other people, which seems likely Kowal2701 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not up to me but i wouldn't mind if admins gave this user one last chance if he agrees to follow the rules. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or he might just not have any respect for other people, which seems likely
Yup, not so long ago they even harrassed me by sabotaging two articles I was expanding, (ironically) accusing me of being a sock [24] [25]. There is also this edit summary I ain't gonna stop socking cry more b*tch Regardless of what they claim, they are and will always remain WP:NOTHERE imo. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 July 2024

[edit]

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk oder checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

More or less same changes at the lede [26] as one of SheryOfficial's socks [27] HistoryofIran (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand they admitted to it [28]. Can we make a checkuser just be to safe? HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2024 (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]
 Confirmed to General Asif Janjua (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), going off the "admission" as a reasonable connection to the main. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28 July 2024

[edit]

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk oder checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand new user created today, just a day after the latest sock was blocked. Tried to restore [29] (and apparently knows about WP:COMMON NAME and how to make a move request right off the bat) the name SheryOfficial's sock tried to force some months ago [30] --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand they admitted to it [31][32]. Can we please do a Checkuser regardless? They usually have a sock or two lying around. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2024 (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]

Oddly enough,  Confirmed to Elsisko (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) but no one else, but behavioural seems to match. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2024

[edit]

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk oder checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Brand new user created a few days after the latest SPI. Like SheryOfficial, constantly moving articles right off the bat [33] [34] [35]. One of their first edits they are already aware of the word "dab" [36]. A notable one is the move of Khamaneh to Khaminah, which SheryOfficial also tried back in January [37]

They think they are real smart striking the comment of their own sock [38], as if a new user knows that a thing. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand pretty much admitted to it by trolling [39] [40] HistoryofIran (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would appreciate if a CheckUser could be made just to be sure that they don't have any other socks lying around. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2024 (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]

21 August 2024

[edit]

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse oder decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

119.73.112.0/24: same as last year (archive).

Беарофчечьня and Fieldheid: usual subject areas, disruptive page moves, and some other beans.

37.111.148.0/24: ‎37.111.148.106, ‎37.111.148.151, and 37.111.148.36 are all them (clerks and admins can e-mail me if they want to discuss the beans).

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Masquerading as a Russian now, if it continues at this rate they will get to cosplay all nationalities. Please rollback all their edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it right now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Apaugasma! HistoryofIran (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran and @Apaugasma, I don't understand the speedy mass rollback of User:Беарочечьня edits. It haven't been confirmed and their edits should've been mass reverted when confirmed as a sock by a check user. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Safari Scribe! I'm very familiar with this LTA (see the dozens of reports in the archive), and I'm 100% sure it's them. I'm mainly mass reverting early because waiting longer often means that it is more work, but to some extent also because it is useful for other users (such as you) to be aware of the fact that this is a sock who can be ignored. Is there any disadvantage to reverting early that I didn't think of? If there's any edit you think was useful, please feel free to re-revert. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment on the name Беарофчечьня- not Russian, Chechen. The name in Russian is gobbledygook, but it transliterates to English as "Bear of Chechnya". Tarl N. (discuss) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be safe;
  1. Chechen name in Cyrillic, but vast majority of edits are on Pakistani/Arab topics. SheryOfficial is notorious for masquerading as other nationalities whilst still editing mainly Arab/Pakistani topics (eg [41]).
  2. This was Беарофчечьня's second edit [42], far from that of a new user. What new user knows how to format citations in Sfn?
  3. Like SheryOfficial, they move a lot of articles [43] [44] [45] [46]
  4. Like the other socks of SheryOfficial, they mostly go AWOL after an SPI has been formed.

As for Fieldheid [47], they more or less restored the move of SheryOfficial's sock [48], claiming in their edit summary "Manually reverting undiscussed move made a few months ago", which is blatantly false, and no new user would do this. Hope this is enough, I can find more proof if needed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

I've run a check and there look to be some potentially connected accounts, but nothing that immediately shouts SheryOfficial. I'll see if I can make some time to re-run everything but I wouldn't be opposed to a second opinion from another CU. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SheryOfficial&oldid=1242123326"