From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Orchomen

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

02 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Sockmaster has reportedly wikistalked several editors, including myself, Amaury, IJBall and Callmemirela, getting into revert wars by reinstating an edit reverted by any of us, particularly at The Thundermans on October 16. IJBall has been the most wikistalked of the editors, and can bring up more of a history concerning the sockmaster, who is indef blocked. As for User:Lochagos, their edit summary at Paradise Run here (in reverting a revert by Amaury) is similar in tone and style to this one at The Thundermans here (in reverting a revert by Callmemirela).

After the sockmaster Orchomen was blocked on October 16, they used numerous IP addresses to continue reverting at articles that IJBall, Amaury, Callmemirela or myself had recently edited, which went on for at least a day or two afterward, simply to spite their being blocked. There's more documentation about this on Amaury's talk page User talk:Amaury/2016#Orchomen (and continued at User talk:Amaury#Orchomen (continued)) as well as in the archive of BU Rob13's talk page User talk:BU Rob13/Archive 5#User:Orchomen IP socks. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 17:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

This is pretty much a WP:DUCK case, but a look at User:Lochagos' contrib. history and User:Orchomen's contrib. history shows a strong overlap: TV-related articles (esp. those related to Disney Channel or Nickelodeon shows), and historical topics (esp. Rome and Greece). I don't think it's a coincidence... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  In progress - Katie talk 20:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  •  Confirmed. No sleepers visible. Blocked and tagged. Katie talk 20:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I love the smell of CU-blocks in the morning. Closing. GAB gab 00:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC) reply

20 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Behavior pattern strongly indicates that this is Orchomen evading their block and sock puppeteering once again under a different IP than usual, likely in an attempt to throw us off. Their usual IPs locate to the UAE while this one locates to the UK; however, that doesn't mean it's not them as I remember MPFitz1968 saying one of their IPs in the initial attack when everything first went down located to Australia.

The original stalkee is IJBall, who can provide a bit more background if needed, and then it all escalated from there when he requested my assistance and Michael, Callmemirela, and myself all got majorly involved with this serial sock puppet. BU Rob13 has been with us from the very beginning and has been a huge help and KrakatoaKatie has also been helping us and has also been a huge help. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 20:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC) reply

  • @ BU Rob13: Their summaries are almost identical in tone, such as passive-aggressiveness like here, or they're generally pretty close to the summaries Orchomen has used when trying to be "helpful," we'll say, such as here. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 21:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • While this IP doesn't Geolocate to UEA, the behvaioral pattern is the same as Orchomen's before: overwhelming interest on "grammar" copyedits (only some of which can probably be considered "correct"), along with contribution stalking of editors such as Amaury and myself. This to Travis Willingham is particularly telling as it is an obscure topic to edit, and was made within a hour of my reversion of another IP editor at the same article, and was made within a few hours of Amaury posting concerns about this IP to my Talk page. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • @ Amaury: Could you provide a few diffs of past socking IPs or the accounts and the new socking IP emphasizing the similarities? ~ Rob13 Talk 20:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC) reply
    • An editor more technically inclined than me is currently looking at this. It's a web host. There will be a solution in a bit. ~ Rob13 Talk 22:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Blocked for two years as a web host, along with the entire range. Thanks for the report. ~ Rob13 Talk 22:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC) reply


21 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious Orchomen is obvious. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 06:52, 21 November 2016 (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

  • Blocked and tagged as obvious sock; closing. Katie talk 12:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

04 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Heavy intersection at one of Orchomen's socks main topic areas (The Arabian/Persian Gulf naming dispute) [1] [2] [3] [4], restoring sock edits: [5] [6], stalking editors who warn them: [7] [8] [9], and an overall edit-warrior battleground mentality very reminiscent of past socks. Sro23 ( talk) 18:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • This IP edited Aha's talk page and made a revert to a page where Aha was edit warring. It locates to Dubai, UAE. - BilCat ( talk) 10:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

10 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

User:Asbo23 made disruptive edits on talk page of another confirmed sock: User:Ahahahahahahahahaha, then made edits on master's favorite article: Barbarians Rising. It's editing history shows that user edited mostly on User talk:Ahahahahahahahahaha, so  It looks like a duck to me Diffs: [10], [11] [12] -- Stylez995 ( talk) 16:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Bbb23 Please consider taking away talk page access for these socks. Sro23 ( talk) 17:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Bbb23, talk page abuse is especially happening at User talk:Barryssister. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 17:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply
Might a temporary range block be possible? Otherwise, it might just be best to semi-protect any previously-targeted articles, and leave the talk pages alone per DENY. - BilCat ( talk) 17:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

18 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

94.205.165.179 is a fairly obvious WP:DUCK: [13] The Thracian has been restoring this IP's edits ( [14] [15]), shares the interest in Emirati subject matter ( [16] [17]) and similar stalking of editors he's been in conflict with before ( [18] [19] [20]). Sro23 ( talk) 19:10, 18 December 2016 (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 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK First entry in talk page of User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen [21]. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 14:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC) MPFitz1968 ( talk) 14:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I also noticed it's a similar name to one reported in the December 10, 2016 report. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 15:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply
As Amaury is requesting speedy deletion of the aforementioned talk page, I will post the comment left by User:Hiagaineverybody23 on that page in case it becomes inaccessible: This list is really handy for keeping track of which proxies I've already used. Thanks guys! MPFitz1968 ( talk) 16:03, 21 December 2016 (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

 Blocked and tagged RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC) reply

22 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Already blocked as a sockpuppet by Zzuuzz. Just wanted to see if this was indeed Orchomen or someone else who doesn't like me, haha! Amaury ( talk | contribs) 15:24, 22 December 2016 (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

  • Nothing to be done here. A CU isn't going to be run on a duck. There was a very recent sleeper check, so another one of those seems unnecessary. It's not always important to know who the sockmaster was. Closing. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC) reply


01 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

I was holding off on filing an SPI because nothing immediately screamed sockpuppet at first, but I believe I now have sufficient evidence that this is Orchomen simply trying a new tactic to try to throw us off their trail. See Caedite eos' latest edit summary over on List of The Thundermans episodes which is similar in tone to that of Orchomen as well as their message on my talk page accusing me of making threats, though I did not, which is also similar in tone to that of Orchomen. Also see User talk:IJBall#Re: Caedite eos for interaction reports between Orchomen and Caedite eos as well as between our group and Caedite eos. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 02:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I don't know what all this is about but you were threatening me. You kept posting threatening to revoke my editing privileges repeatedly over a simple grammar correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caedite eos ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Caedite eos is  Possible.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I'm not seeing enough to make a purely behavioral block yet, but this allegation isn't totally without substance. If additional behavioral similarities emerge, please feel free to report again. ~ Rob13 Talk 00:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

08 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orchomen/Archive and /info/en/?search=User:Amaury/List_of_accounts_and_IPs_used_by_Orchomen Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:23, 8 January 2017 (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

IP isn't editing anymore, closing. GAB gab 16:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply

12 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Clear case of WP:DUCK. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 20:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

May I request checking for sleepers? MPFitz1968 ( talk) 20:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

15 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK, alluding to the list Amaury has been compiling regarding the sockmaster in this in Amaury's sandbox. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 18:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Used the oldest trick in the Wikipedia book of making 10 nonsense edits in their userspace to get to autoconfirmed status (see their contributions, account was already at least 4 days old). Brilliant! MPFitz1968 ( talk) 18:28, 15 January 2017 (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

  •  Clerk endorsed - This one (created on January 9) seemed to have slipped through the cracks when a CU was conducted on January 13. Thanks very much, GAB gab 18:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Confirmed, blocked, closing. Katie talk 18:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

14 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Summaries are pretty much similar in tone, it's obvious it's Orchomen. It's also pretty obvious it's them based on the fact that the only articles they've edited thus far—I expect to be reverted—are articles I'm watching. Coincidence? I don't think so. (I know you're currently no longer admin, but still pinging you, BU Rob13. Also pinging MPFitz1968, IJBall, and Callmemirela.) Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I've now been reverted. Yup. Definitely them. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 15:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious sock. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:21, 14 February 2017 (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 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Username is a dead giveaway that this is a sock. See User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen#Accounts Amaury ( talk | contribs) 21:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Obvious case of WP:DUCK Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Added Crat the black, another good hand account. The same contribution-stalking users he's been in conflict with in the past via minor copyedits. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] There's also the shared interest in obscure UAE topics [28] [29] [30] [31] Sro23 ( talk) 18:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Just making a note that Crat the Black has been blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist. (Thank you!) That just leaves one for the February 15 listings. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 06:45, 20 February 2017 (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 have blocked User:Barrysdriver for expressive quacking. Lectonar ( talk) 14:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Tagged, closing. GAB gab 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

19 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Sole edit is the creation of User talk:Barryschicken with the content "Amaury Sro23." BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 04:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Not constructive. GAB gab 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@ IJBall and Amaury: Please be aware that while sock puppets are not tolerated, neither are personal attacks per WP:NPA, also a policy, and if you continue with such immature behaviour, you will be reported. Alex|The|Whovian ? 17:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Please use some judgement here, AlexTheWhovian. -- NeilN talk to me 17:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Judgement is not an issue. Professionalism is. Alex|The|Whovian ? 17:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I disagree - and you've also unnecessarily scolded the wrong editor. -- NeilN talk to me 17:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
So, because you don't like a person, it gives you the right to personally attack them? Great editing. Luckily I'm not the only person with this view. Alex|The|Whovian ? 17:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Sro23 left a friendly, non-template, and non-aggressive note. You basically just went at us right from the get-go. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Because your actions were so much sweeter. Give to others what you expect to be given back to you. Alex|The|Whovian ? 17:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I said use some judgement. A mild jab at best, responded to with a chuckle. Threatening to report for this probably means you should be adjusting your sense of perspective. -- NeilN talk to me 17:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Woah, Alex. I think you need you need take a breather. You've just 180'd this conversation. We've been dealing with this user for months. A few slip-ups will come up. However, it is truly unnecessary to go on to threaten long-standing editors of reporting them. A simple friendly note would just be fine. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
And they shall continue to attack every editor they disagree with, given their backing by an administrator. That's great. Great editing. Amazing teamwork. Alex|The|Whovian ? 17:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Okay, I think that's enough. Please move on. This isn't helping anyone. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I realize you don't trust my judgment, Alex, and never have, but if you think I would go after a regular editor the way I'd go after a prolific harassing sockmaster like Orchomen, you really don't know me at all. But could we please get back to the matter at hand, which is an SPI report to look for sleepers? Thanks. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

21 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

And here we go again. Several new accounts all reinstating sock User:Crat the black's edits. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] etc. Sro23 ( talk) 02:03, 21 February 2017 (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 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

re-instating sock edits [38] [39] Sro23 ( talk) 01:15, 22 February 2017 (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

  Looks like a duck to me. GAB gab 03:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Account now blocked.  Confirmed as well. - Mailer Diablo 08:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Tagged, closing. GAB gab 21:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply

23 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

[40] [41] Here's a new account complaining about how sock User:Brawlcoils's edits shouldn't have been reverted and the articles should not have been protected. WP:DUCK Sro23 ( talk) 02:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Added Huffsrowel. Clear case of WP:DUCK. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Added Grinsopium. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 08:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Savoysitar has been added. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 08:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Added Cratelyons. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 08:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • All blocked already. Closing. ~ Rob13 Talk 08:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply


23 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. See this comment on BU Rob13's talk page, with a reference to No. 2 Squadron RAF in their comment, which contains a bit of back and forth reverting involving at least one already confirmed sock [42] [43]. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 09:51, 23 February 2017 (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

 Technically indistinguishable from other Orchomen socks, plus behavioural evidence. Blocked and tagged. -- Euryalus ( talk) 10:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Closing as already blocked. ~ Rob13 Talk 17:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

23 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

[44] [45] Reverting deletion of messages by socks. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 13:42, 23 February 2017 (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 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Their edit pattern of making (incorrect) grammar edits is the exact same as IP socks who previously edited that article. As such, I strongly feel this is Orchomen back at it again to cause trouble. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:55, 6 March 2017 (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

Red X Unrelated.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - I find it hard to discount these: [46] [47]. However, I would like a second opinion here. Feel free to close if you believe no action should be taken. Thanks, GAB gab 19:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Blocked NeilN talk to me 20:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

31 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Noticed several new accounts restoring edits made by blocked sockpuppets. Some are obvious throwaways ( [48] [49]) and others are little less obvious ( [50] [51] [52] [53]). Other edits are very inconsequential grammar "corrections" that seem to match previous good-hand account behavior. [54] [55] [56] [57] All that's missing is the overlap/hounding of users Orchomen has been in disputes with in the past. CU request for needed sleeper check and also to confirm these suspicions. Sro23 ( talk) 05:22, 31 March 2017 (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 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

These sockpuppets keep removing the same information from Ed Jones (racing driver). [58] [59] Sro23 ( talk) 14:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply


02 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Same edit behavior as others on Ed Jones (racing driver). I'm thinking extended confirmed protection may be in order for that article. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:10, 2 April 2017 (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 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 05:22, 3 April 2017 (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 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK on Ed Jones (racing driver): [60] [61] [62] Please check for sleepers as this one is autoconfirmed already. Sro23 ( talk) 02:37, 26 April 2017 (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 May 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Call it a hunch. The editor seems to like racing drivers ( [63] [64]) and we know from the history of Ed Jones (racing driver) that Orchomen is also probably a fan. Most of their edits appear to be grammar "fixes" ( [65] [66]) just like Orchomen socks. In addition, the user randomly made this edit before self reverting. A look through that talk page's history reveals an Orchomen sock ( [67]) talking to another disruptive IP about the usual users Orchomen dislikes. Sro23 ( talk) 01:27, 11 May 2017 (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 May 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 14:48, 13 May 2017 (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 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Noticed this user on Ed Jones (racing driver); it's been demonstrated in the past that Orchomen seems to be a fan. Then I saw they were doing Orchomen's favorite typo-fixes ("compliment"→‎"complement"), compare [68] to [69], as well as other various grammar "fixes" [70]. Unfortunately this sock is going to require quite a bit of cleanup. Sro23 ( talk) 11:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

08 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

I was notified that the IP had reverted me, which consists of Orchomen's MO. Also, the IP geolocates to UAE, where most of Orchomen's IPs come from. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Please see their message posted on my talk page and later reverted by Amaury. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 11:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

CU declined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • IP edits too old. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 12:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply


11 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

The IP reverted me, consist with Orchomen's MO, and the IP geolocates to UAE. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

No doubt this is Orchomen. BU Rob13. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:03, 11 June 2017 (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

  • Already blocked, closing. ~ Rob13 Talk 18:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

18 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Here we go once again. It's another user intent on enforcing their interpretation of MOS:NICKNAME ( [71] [72]) and being randomly hostile to other editors ( [73]). Sro23 ( talk) 23:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

19 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

The user's contributions are all consistent with Orchomen's MO. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:02, 19 July 2017 (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 account has already been blocked indefinitely. Marking closed. Mz7 ( talk) 22:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC) reply

20 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Again consistent with Orchomen's MO. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 11:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Is it possible for an edit filter be set up? I'm tired of getting pinged by this guy but don't want to disable the ability to mention me altogether. Sro23 ( talk) 11:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Ditto. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 11:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
You'll have a better chance of getting a knowledgeable answer at WP:EF/R. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 11:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Could someone at SPI with knowledge of Orchomen please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled? Orchomen is known for socks such as Barryscousin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Barryssister ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen), and considering a likely IP sock of Orchomen just reverted Drmies at the other SPI, I can't think that this is a coincidence... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Pinging BU Rob13 and KrakatoaKatie. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC) reply
It does seem rather odd that Orchomen found that SPI page minus the main SPI page. Perhaps they are the true sockmaster? I believe it was you IJBall who thought Orchomen was a sock of somebody? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 20:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)s reply
Well, Barryispuzzled reportedly edited articles related to Shakespeare and astrophysics, and that's not exactly Orchomen's cup of tea. I agree that the sock names are similar and all, but the behavior doesn't quite match up. Katie talk 02:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 October 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

It's been firmly established Orchomen is a big Ed Jones (racing driver) fan, which is where I first noticed this account. One of Orchomen's favorite tasks was to remove hypocorisms from article ledes [74] [75], so when I saw this user doing the exact same thing [76] [77], I knew it was him. Sro23 ( talk) 04:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Not the foggiest what you're on about. Craic Den ( talk) 05:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

12 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

This account has been supporting or restoring the last sock (Craic Den)'s edits on more than one occasion ( [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]). Like many previous sockpuppets, there is a noticeable focus on removing hypocorisms ( [84] [85]). Sro23 ( talk) 08:50, 12 November 2017 (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

12 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK - [86] [87] Sro23 ( talk) 18:02, 12 November 2017 (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

23 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. Typical "undo" Orchomen behavior and restored an edit on I Am Frankie made by one of Orchomen's previous, but now blocked, socks: Craic Den Amaury ( talk | contribs) 02:25, 23 November 2017 (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 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

It's long been established Orchomen's a fan of Ed Jones (racing driver). Noticed a new user trying and failing to copyedit that article, so I took a look at their contribs and saw them doing one of Orchomen's favorite maintenance tasks-removing hypocorisms from leads: [88] [89] Sro23 ( talk) 18:04, 21 December 2017 (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

  •  Clerk endorsed - Per sockmaster's history of operating multiple sleepers. Sro23 ( talk) 18:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. No other accounts seen. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

22 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. Barry family. See User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 07:49, 22 December 2017 (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

  • Account is blocked. Closing. Sro23 ( talk) 08:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

26 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

I believe this is Orchomen's static IP. Geolocation and behavior match up.

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

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Since the IP is so sticky, please block for at least a month. Sro23 ( talk) 21:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

02 July 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Noticed a new user (who previously had made zero edits to Victor Menezes) file Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goodsearchlight, which I thought was odd. In the past Orchomen sockpuppets had revert warred with the Goodsearchlight sockfarm on that article ( [90] [91]). Also noticed that they edited an obscure article creation by an Orchomen sock ( [92] [93]). It's been established that removing hypocorisms from article ledes is one of Orchomen's favorite maintenance tasks, and this account engages in that too ( [94] [95]). When I saw the user showing interest in the Persian Gulf naming dispute, it basically confirmed my suspicions ( [96] [97]). Quack quack. Sro23 ( talk) 16:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Good point. I’ll make sure to use IPs to file sock reports in the future. xx Heliotom ( talk) 18:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Could an admin please indef given the above admission? Thanks, Sro23 ( talk) 19:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Blocked NeilN talk to me 19:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply

27 March 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Clear WP:DUCK case here. Notice on Becky G they replaced American with Emirari, and we all know Orchomen and their IPs originate in the UAE. Ping BU Rob 13 as he is very familiar with this sock. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply

@ BU Rob13: Messed up the ping above. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • Definitely WP:DUCK, based on the username and the editing pattern. The only big difference this time is that Orchomen is now engaging in actual vandalism at articles, whereas before his MO was just WP:DE. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@ Bbb23: There was also Parryometric and the sleepers Barrys butchers dog and Barrys butchers cat which I blocked as the same group. I intuited that there was likely an older master, but wasn't familiar with this one so I didn't make the connection.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action Parryometric had TPA restored prior to being attached to this case. Admin note asks for TPA to be revoked. Cabayi ( talk) 11:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Done. If I remember correctly, he went through a phase where he pinged people incessantly. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC) reply

21 November 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

If their edits weren't enough, they've now self-admitted here. Amaury • 18:43, 21 November 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

  • Blocked by Materialscientist. ST47 ( talk) 19:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

19 February 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Quacking on Haya bint Hussein ( [98] [99]), Claire Lehmann ( [100] [101]), and attempting to delete First Lady of Dubai ( [102] [103]) for the second time. Will block/tag in a moment, filing only for record. Sro23 ( talk) 22:12, 19 February 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

This is about the fourth sockpuppet of Orchomen's to pop up today. It would be appreciated if a check for other sleepers could be performed. Thanks. Amaury • 05:05, 2 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

Confirmed. There's a few other socks already blocked today, which I'm not going to bother listing or tagging. There's also a few IP blocks currently in place. More might be possible, but for now  No sleepers immediately visible. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

27 June 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Sigh. Here we have another sock with an interest in Ancient Rome ( [104] [105], [106] [107]), battleships ( [108], [109]), and of course, racing drivers ( [110], [111]). Already blocked, requesting CU for any missed accounts. Sro23 ( talk) 20:49, 27 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

  •  Clerk endorsed - Endorsing own request. Please compare against the non-stale socks in the archive to check for sleepers. Sro23 ( talk) 20:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  •  Confirmed but no other accounts immediately visible. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

14 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Familiar interest in ancient Greece/Rome. Same fixation on MOS:BCE as the last sockpuppet blocked (see [112] and [113]). "New user" referencing a discussion started by the last sockpuppet and supporting its view (e.g. [114] vs [115]). Pretty obviously a sock, so I have blocked. Given this account has been around since June, it would be a good idea to check for any other missed accounts. Sro23 ( talk) 08:01, 14 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

08 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Just for the record. I'd rather not say the evidence here because I'm concerned he's changing up his editing patterns based on the SPI archive. Admins are free to email me if he appeals. I'm sure there are various hidden accounts sleeping right now too, but whatever. Sro23 ( talk) 17:20, 8 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

  • Blocked and tagged, closing. Sro23 ( talk) 17:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

10 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


An SPA that has targeted the same victim as every other one of his socks [ [116]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Slatersteven ( talk) 18:07, 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

  • IP rangeblocked. Closing case. Sro23 ( talk) 18:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

12 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

This account caught my attention because it reverted to a version previously instated by Pipsally. [117] Like previous socks (Pipsally, Perdikos, Blackumbra, etc.), Owlof has an interest in Ancient Rome. [118] [119] [120] Both Pipsally and Owlof use the phrase "change to" in their edit summaries. [121] [122] Amanuensis Balkanicus ( talk) 15:50, 12 September 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

  •  Clerk endorsed - Sleeper check please. Sro23 ( talk) 17:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Same IP range as some older socks. I don't see anything really obvious.  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply

24 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Outed by their rival sockmaster; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnGotten ( permalink). Continuing their long-running sock edit-war at Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this ES is duckily similar to those by Orchomen sox' in the article's history (ctrl+f "consensus").

CU requested to be sure and due to history of sleepers. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 04:42, 24 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

This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of their training as a clerk. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on their talk page or on this page.

29 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

  1. 2021/11/25 edit by Lirae22 adding 'sexist' to Karen (slang)
  2. 2021/10/11 edit by Ingvario adding the same
  3. 2022/11/24 edit by Lirae 22 to the infobox of Sweden, placing the Speaker of Riksdag above the Prime Minister
  4. 2021/06/28 edit by Pipsally making the same infobox change

I think it's unlikely that this account, created a week after Ingvario's block, would coincidentally restore Orchomen-sock edits on two such disparate articles. Pinging Comradeka, who has accused Lirae22 of being an Ingvario sock. Firefangledfeathers 18:46, 29 November 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

01 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

  1. reverting to a Lirae22 edit
  2. reverting to a Lirae22 edit
  3. restoring talk page comments by Ingvario
  4. A bunch of edits hounding Comradeka, who was in a dispute with Ingvario and publicly called out Lirae22 as a sock: [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], and [129]

Orchomen appears to back editing from one IPv4 ( Special:Contributions/31.219.85.253) and a dynamic set of IPv6s in the Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1F33:3909:2:1:14D:66DC/32 range. There are definitely some recent edits by unrelated users in that 32 range, but I don't know if it's possible to capture the problematic edits in any tighter range. Firefangledfeathers 04:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Pinging User:Comradeka, who's getting the worst of it right now. Firefangledfeathers 04:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Sro23: understood. What can I do to help whac? Is it worth it to list individual IPv6s or /64s here? Firefangledfeathers 03:13, 2 December 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

  • I have a feeling you're going to have a difficult time finding an admin comfortable with blocking that wide a range. We usually just end up playing whac a mole with this one. Sro23 ( talk) 03:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    /32 is excessive. The /38 had a history of harassment and two previous blocks. Re-blocked; see below. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • At this point, you'll get more of an immediate response at AIV. Next time he shows up you can report straight to AIV along with a link to this SPI. Sro23 ( talk) 03:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

06 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

IPs geolocate to the UAE, Orchomen's favorite place. Amaury • 18:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

The IPs are obvious Orchomen socks. Their sudden appearance at CreecregofLife's edit war at Gabby Duran & the Unsittables is peculiar. Firefangledfeathers 18:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

They came in just as the communications were clearer and getting calmer. Admittedly I nearly reverted them (which probably wouldn't have leaned favorably about edit warring) as their edits were only making things worse.-- CreecregofLife ( talk) 18:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Reasonable. On a deeper look, it's possible the Orchomen sock IPs were following Escape Orbit to the conflict, who was recently involved in reverting some sock edits. Firefangledfeathers 18:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Interesting. I registered about a week ago after about 2 months of anonymous editing (got over 1000 edits. I still use those edits as a resource because I jump around so much on what to tackle. I know I’m certainly not in the UAE-- CreecregofLife ( talk) 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Agreed. It could well be this and CreecregofLife simply has got caught up in it. Their edits don't appear to be in any way similar. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This one is pretty obvious, with the account making the same edits as a previous blocked sock ( [130] [131]), ( [132] [133]) etc. CU is requested in case there are any other missed accounts. Sro23 ( talk) 23:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk endorsed - Endorsing own request. Thank you, Sro23 ( talk) 23:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Same IP range as Wotanluzo and some other socks. There's also some logged-out edit warring over hypocorisms.  Blocked and tagged. There's a surprising number of people editing a lot of random articles. I don't see anything obvious, though. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

07 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Respelling of Gugrak, an already tagged suspected sock. At the very least, should be able to CU against Gugrak, if not against the master. UtherSRG (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, this latest sock claims there are other socks out there. UtherSRG (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I just wanted to note that two IPs, both of which are obvious Orchomen socks, have edited this page, which, if there was any doubt as to Sro23's prodigious ability to identify socks behaviorally, removed it. I'm inclined now to tag Baseboom as a suspected sock, but I'll wait a little longer to see if Sro23 returns.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

15 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

It tends to revert edits and give negative ratings [134] and here from Gugrak [135], particularly when directed at a specific IP address. Furthermore, it was observed supporting the deletion of the Anglo-American Invasion of Communist Albania page in a discussion. Interestingly, the IP address also suddenly engaged with the user User:StephenMacky, advocating for the page's deletion. Notably, the same users ("User Based Shqiptar from pirok" and "NormalguyfromUK") are consistently involved in conflicts. [136] This behavior suggests the possibility of sockpuppetry tactics being employed to manipulate the discourse. Shqipodrilo ( talk) 15:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Both the individual identified as 123.243.216.213 and Gugrak exhibit identical interests, editing patterns, and linguistic styles. It's worth noting that Gugrak has gained notoriety for creating multiple accounts, despite being permanently banned, and has started investigations into sockpuppetry aimed at me, although all these allegations have been proven false. Evidently, this new account appears to have been established with the intention of securing my banning. In fact, during a conversation with StephenMacky1, he remarked, "Thier refusal to do anything about BSfP is mind boggling." signifying his active engagement in efforts aimed against me. Based.shqiptar.frompirok ( talk) 16:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The IP edits are now old. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 11:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

14 September 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The editors User:2.48.102.82 and User:37.245.43.126 are exhibiting similar interests and editing behavior to the accounts below, at least one of which was previously banned as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Orchomen. User:2.48.102.82 blanked that page multiple times and also blanked the page at User:37.245.43.126 multiple times. These two IP addresses also returned to editing some of the same articles edited by the other addresses listed, including Posy (given name). These addresses also all appear to be based in the United Arab Emirates. While this editor's or editors' editing of articles in the past day or so appears to be unobjectionable, the blanking of pages is problematic and there was apparently previous behavior that led to the User:Orchomen account and subsequent sockpuppets being suspended. The User:Gugrak account was banned as a suspected sockpuppet a couple of months ago. If this editor is the same individual, it would seem to be be more appropriate to ask to have the original account unblocked and acknowledge edits made using the other account and IP addresses. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 07:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Additionally, checkusers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances.

I don't see anything exceptional here. The blanking of talkpages isn't what's problematic, what's problematic is Bookworm857158367 publicly tagging linking multiple IPs including extremely stale ones to an account without being a CU or an admin, or an SPI or CU having taken place. 31.219.136.224 ( talk) 10:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 91.72.187.50 ( talk) 10:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC) 2.48.51.30 ( talk) 11:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC) UTC) reply

It's only problematic if it is done to avoid a block or scrutiny of one's edits, which the pattern of editing made me think it might be. I'm not saying the editing by these addresses on their own is a problem, even if I disagree with some. That's a fairly normal content dispute that helps make an article better when editors can collaborate. After that length of time, I think it might well be time to lift the ban on the original identity if there actually is a connection between these accounts, though it would have to be requested. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 11:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Two IPs now blocked, others haven't edited in a long time, closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 12:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply

16 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Recreated Tarleton helmet as Tarleton Cap. Quack. CU request for any missed accounts, as this one has been inactive for over a month. Sro23 ( talk) 04:29, 16 January 2024 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orchomen/Archive&oldid=1196255003"