Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial: Difference between revisions

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

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

• Kürkisk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Same old, same old. This time not masquerading as an Iranian (their favourite) or an Albanian, but a Turkish person [1]. A "Turkish" person which apparently knows most about Arabic related stuff than anything else [2] [3] [4] [5]. Those diffs also show that they are familiar with Wiki templates, just like a "new" user would.

Like SheryOfficial, they also love to use WP:RM/TR right off the get-go, just like any "new" user would [6]

Would highly appreciate if you could rollback all their edits, I'm very confident this is SheryOfficial. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: After this SPI they immediately starting reverting themselves and claimed that they were "retiring" [7]. Though they are probably making another account as usual. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: DeobandiBlade is deffo a sock of SheryOfficial. This is their first edit, as a "new" user already familiar with templates related to Arabic exactly like SheryOfficial in their past socks and Kürkisk [8]. SheryOfficial has also shown interest in Deobandi related articles (eg [9] [10]). Not to mention their account was created just a day after this SPI. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Primefac: I opened an SPI case concerning user Kürkisk. I just noticed this one. Can you take a look? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed via Leithiani. I found the following accounts that are either name- or IP- related which I'd file as  Possible but might need further evaluation (not opposed to blocking them as well):

• Umeedawan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DeobandiBlade (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Aqsa799 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

There are also a couple of others that were a little too far out of what I'd want to even say as possible. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 182.177.37.79 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• DashnorKemalit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ibn Chishti (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 182.191.149.163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 37.111.149.63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Geolocates to Pakistan, where SheryOfficial is from. Very similar edit and exact same edit summary [11] [12]. Here the IP restored [13] a edit by SheryOfficial [14]. IP also makes use Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests [15] 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 [16]. And they don't remotely edit like a new user. One of their first edits was a move request [17] and they kinda restored SheryOfficial's edit [18], compare it to my previous revert [19]. --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 [20]. Also not the first time SheryOfficial has reverted others and randomly accused them of being a sock [21]. --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 [22] [23], compare [24]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DashnorKemalit just openly admitted to being a sock of SheryOfficial [25]. 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]

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. [[26]] 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.

[[27]] 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 [28]. 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 [29] [30]. 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]

• No obvious match between Ibn Chishti and anyone else, so  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation Primefac (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• EMAMFan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Brand "new" user created three days ago already know the names of multiple policies such as WP:RS, MOS:REPEATLINK. Already knows how templates and formatting work [31] [32]. Edits in the same articles as SheryOfficial's socks, eg Deobandi movement and Taqlid.

And they restored the edit [33] of SheryOfficial's sock IP [34] HistoryofIran (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though they have admitted to socking, can we please still do a checkuser? They likely have other socks lying around. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

EMAMFan has stated: OMG, how do you even get to know my accounts? I'm only editing Deobandi-related articles (which you never edit) and still catching me out of nowhere. [35] 2402:8100:24CC:387A:7D65:EAC1:3178:E76C (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked them as an admitted sock, though a CU could still be useful. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing doing, everyone that needs blocking is blocked. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 154.57.223.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Gelocates to Pakistan (where SheryOfficial is from). Reverted me to restore SheryOfficial's IP socks edit [36]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, they do use this range. They were active on the /24 just two months ago: please see the archive on 14 May 2024. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Range looks pretty much to have only been used by them since April 2024. Could an admin please give it another range block? HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per prev. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Meriox (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

More or less same changes at the lede [37] as one of SheryOfficial's socks [38] HistoryofIran (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand they admitted to it [39]. Can we make a checkuser just be to safe? HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

 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]

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

• ShiaSoldier313 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Brand new user created today, just a day after the latest sock was blocked. Tried to restore [40] (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 [41] --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand they admitted to it [42][43]. 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]

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

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]

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

• عالم توشک (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

[44][45]; some other small beans make it very clear it's them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

They also admitted it here (Google Translate); Thanks for translating. Sherry official speaking, leave me alone please. Can we please do a Checkuser just in case they have other socks lying around? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're still editing, and they likely have more socks lying around. Can someone please block the user and make a Checkuser? HistoryofIran (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked and tagged. I'll leave the CU request open. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Confirmed to EMAMFan listed above, plus a couple of messy ranges on which I want to get a second opinion. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Double-checked, nothing more to add here. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Hezeqo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

@Primefac:, Brand new user created a few days after the latest SPI. Like SheryOfficial, constantly moving articles right off the bat [46] [47] [48]. One of their first edits they are already aware of the word "dab" [49]. A notable one is the move of Khamaneh to Khaminah, which SheryOfficial also tried back in January [50]

They think they are real smart striking the comment of their own sock [51], as if a new user knows that a thing. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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