Welcome to Sockpuppet investigations (SPI), a centralized forum regarding suspicions of sock puppetry amongst users as well as any additional CheckUser requests.
If the evidence is sensitive, privacy is needed, or if it involves sock puppetry by an administrator, seek advice by email from a Checkuser or the Arbitration Committee first. Private information, emails, logs, etc, may not be posted on Wikipedia; if they are important evidence, you must also seek advice by email first.
Before submitting a case, check that there isn't one already in progress using the search button at the bottom of this page.
Please provide evidence (preferably with diffs and any reasonable deductions and impressions as a result) that show disruption or deception via IPs or accounts via sock puppetry. Cases without any evidence or with solely vague beliefs or assumptions will likely be rejected.
Consider notifying the suspected accounts by adding {{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talk pages. Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection.
Keep it simple. Simple, concisely presented evidence leads to a quickly resolved case.
Do I need to request CheckUser?
CheckUser is a tool used by a small number of trusted users. It allows them to access evidence from Wikipedia's server logs to help resolve the case. For most cases, behavioral evidence is enough, with no need for CheckUser.
To request CheckUser, there must be credible evidence supporting the suspicion of sockpuppetry or abuse, and good cause why CheckUser is required. Requests for checkuser without evidence will be declined, because CheckUser is not for fishing. CheckUser is also not magic pixie dust, and should not be requested to investigate canvassing or meatpuppetry, Stale account(s) that have not edited for many months, or cases where behavioral evidence is sufficient to decide the matter (see also the duck test). Finally, while CheckUser will not be used to confirm that a user is editing from a specific IP address; quick requests may be made for the purpose of getting an underlying IP address or range blocked, however a CheckUser will not disclose what that IP address is.
Anyone can request CheckUser at any time on an open case if it is necessary. If you wish to request CheckUser to any existing open case, then do the following:
On the top of the case page, change {{SPI case status}} to {{SPI case status|curequest}}. An SPI clerk or CheckUser will review the case and make a determination as to whether CheckUser is needed. A clerk may either endorse the case for CheckUser attention or decline it.
If the case is declined, then it will be included back on the list of SPI cases that do not have CheckUser requests, where it will be handled by a patrolling administrator. If the case is endorsed, then a CheckUser will determine whether a check is justified and review the case and. At the end, CheckUser may post their results under the Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments section, stating which accounts are confirmed to be the same user, which ones are likely, possible, or unlikely that they are the same user, and which ones are unrelated or inconclusive. Sometimes, underlying IP(s) may also be blocked.
The case is then placed back in the list of non-CheckUser requests pending further comments from clerks or patrolling administrators, or it may be closed by a CheckUser or clerk if all issues have been addressed.
Quick CheckUser requests
If you need a CheckUser to review something, but it does not fall into the above categories, please see here for instructions.
Create the case by replacing SOCKMASTER in the white box below with the user name of the oldest account (the sockmaster), or the previous case name, and then clicking the button under the box. For example, if the case name is about User:John Doe or a prior case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe, then you should enter Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Doe in the white box, and then click the button under the box. You will be taken to the next page, where there is a form to fill out giving the details of your report. Note that this form should be used for both opening a case for the first time, as well as opening a new case for a previous sockmaster.
If CheckUser might be needed, change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes in the edit box.
User:Plasma laser may have been a mistake account per the edit summary here so is not a purposefully subversive account but should be redirect to the sockmaster's page. Curb Chain (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The halo plasma is my brothers account that I told him about my articles about to be deleted and he commented on his own will. Is this where I comment to back my case up.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are a few accounts here, but I don't see any abuse of them. Shawn -you need to pick an account and stick to it. Any old accounts should be redirected to your main account. If your brother is also editing Wikipedia, you should both note that in order to avoid any confusion. TNXMan 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Both the users voted (in support) on an ongoing RFC at Talk:Pakistan. User:Sherepunjabvoted first after about a month long break at about 17:06 UTC (Feb 9,2012) and went away. At 17:16 UTC (Feb 9,2012) User:Gabrupunjabi created his user account and after some random editsvoted at the RFC at 17:44 UTC (Feb 9, 2012). Also both have almost same username pattern and meaning: Sherepunjab means Lion of Punjab and Gabrupunjabi meaning Young Punjabi. SMSTalk 21:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
See the time of vote for both ID and second ID was created after first vote that and see the similarity in their account name both are Punjabi, from Indian Punjab from edit history of one as he is editing Sikh article. The second ID voted after I asked a reason at the poll. Both ID names mean almost same in Punjabi.
GJRFMorelligu was (essentially) indef-blocked for image copyvios on August 5, 2007. Caracas 2000 started editing on August 9, 2007. I have just discovered (in helping go through Caracas 2000's CCI) both users have introduced direct translation copyvios into Venezuelan presidential biographies from load://www.venezuelatuya.com. (See e.g. here - copyvio by GJRFMorelligu, article later edited by Caracas 2000 and here - copyvio by Caracas 2000.) Seems very odd for two independent users to have done this. It would be nice to know if Caracas 2000 has been through this whole song and dance before so we could just do an outright indef-block again if needed--and also to know if we should open a CCI automatically for GJRFMorelligu. I don't really have any evidence about Caracas1830, but he edits a lot of the same articles and it would be nice just to exclude him for sure based on the similarity of the name. Thanks. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Also just found this edit done by Caracas 2000, which references a personal interview by Guillermo Ramos Flamerich, which basically seals the deal. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Please explain why you've included Caracas1830 in this SPI? I used to work closely with him, and I've seen no reason whatsoever to link these two editors. Caracas1830 in my recollection was a serious and knowledgeable editor. Since most Venezuelans are (or were, before recent political deterioration) very proud of their capital city, using the name caracas and editing Venezulan articles is not a reason to suspect sockpuppetry. And Caracas1830 has a good command of English. Have you notified Caracas1830 of this SPI and do you have any evidence linking 2000 and 1830; if not, please remove him per FISHING. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
To my knowledge, Caracas 2000 never uses edit summaries, and has not displayed competency in English. The overlap in their article editing is no different than with me-- it is on common Venezuelan topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that they're probably unrelated and don't really have a sense for the SPI standards since I never come here, so deny this if it's best. I just see them editing a lot of the same articles, sometimes in close succession (but to the extent Caracas1830 is just patrolling Venezuela-related edits this is definitely possible). I am just a little bit on the alert after we had a near-identical situation with copyvio articles translated from French by User:S710, who was reincarnated shortly thereafter as User:S711 without anyone noticing until years later. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course they edit the same articles-- they are generally important Venezuelan articles, and they both (obviously) edit Venezuelan articles as you can tell by their editor name. I edit those articles, too-- does that make me a sockpuppet of one of them? Checkuser is not for fishing: unless you have some evidence that Caracas 1830 is Caracas2000, it would be most kind of you to strike or remove the allegation. Since you didn't notify either of them, I've alerted Caracas 1830, and now it will fall to me to write up a long explanation to him of what this is about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
God, Sandy, can you not be so hysterical? I explicitly stated that I don't know all the relevant rules, and put my request up for what it's worth. If it's deficient, it will be denied. And as far as I could tell from the instructions, notification isn't mandatory. I figured, honestly, that the request would probably denied and it wasn't worth bothering Caracas1830--or, alternately, that it would come back negative and it wouldn't be worth bothering him. If notification is in fact mandatory, the instructions should be revised for clarity. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
God, Callipejen1, can you not [label others as] hysterical? Regardless of what you figured or knew at the time, it has since been pointed out to you that there is no evidence for your accusation, there is evidence against them being the same, and if you figure it wouldn't be worth bothering him, perhaps you've never been accused of socking before? Would you like to strike the allegation or would you like to put up evidence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, whatever. Stricken, though I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever in what the people who deal with this page with do, considering that they could have read what I wrote. No, I have never been accused of sockpuppetry, and I don't believe that I have ever reported anyone here or otherwise been involved on this page so it would be nice if you could assume a bit of good faith - I just figured that the powers that be would appropriately sort things out. I didn't believe that I don't really have any evidence about Caracas1830, but he edits a lot of the same articles and it would be nice just to exclude him for sure based on the similarity of the name was a horrific accusation. To the extent that this request has caused any trouble, I'm sorry. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You've got one user (GJRFMorelligu) who was supposedly blocked six years ago (although he doesn't look blocked to me-- so you might want to check that), but since he hasn't edited for six years, CU data is likely to be stale. But you want to know if he is the same as Caracas2000, so you can block Caracas2000 (who is no longer editing anyway). Since CU data is likely stale, the determination will have to be made based on behavioral evidence, so you need to provide enough behavioral evidence to make a case. Since many of the articles you identify are articles that any Venezuelan editor would edit, what convincing evidence do you have that GJRFMorelligu and Caracas2000 are the same? If I could see the content you've deleted and linked above, I could draw conclusions about the similarity in their edits and their Spanish or English proficiency, but since those edits are revdel'd, I can't see them. For two different Venezuelan editors to cite these common sources (Venezuelatuya) on common articles (Venezuelan Presidents) isn't evidence enough (for me at least) to conclude they're the same; I'd want to see the exact content added and make comparisons of the editors' writing styles, and see some more examples of same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Unfortunately, I'm pretty convinced at this point that User:Caracas 2000 was created to evade the block of User:GJRFMorelligu. :( User:GJRFMorelligu was declined in his last unblock request on 8 August 2006 (not 2007 :)). User:Caracas 2000 created his account on 9 August 2006. Caracas 2000 immediately started uploading images, following the same pattern of the previous editor and some of the uploads are the same. For starers, see File:Juan Bautista Plaza.jpg. I've restored the deleted history for comparison so that you can see it, too, Sandy: [1]. Exactly the same dimensions and resolution; I don't know how to see the metadata of the original. This is also true of File:Alberto Arvelo Torrealba.jpg. Uploaded by GJRF and deleted; later uploaded by Caracas 2000 in precisely the same dimensions. See also File:Mariano Picón Salas.jpg, File:The young Fredy Reyna.jpg. Notable here, both of them uploaded and subsequently had deleted the same image: File:People dancing merengue rucaneao.jpg. This was later uploaded on Commons as public domain (and perhaps it is) by commons:User:Guillermo Ramos Flamerich. The metadata and the dimensions seem the same. I'm going to add any of this you don't already have to your SPI.
I have some real concerns about that user. Check his description for File:Fotos Baruta.jpg: I´m the author of this photo, i take it in August 2006. Why does it say in the metadata Copyright 9,2002? And why does it indicate the file had last been altered on 2003:01:26 20:20?
And look at Caracas 2000's rationale for his File:Vidal Colmenares.jpg: I'm the author of this photo, i take it in August 6, 2006, in a public presentation of Vidal Colmenares, Caracas, Venezuela. Guillermo Ramos Flamerich. He had originally signed this here with his username but changed it many months later.
I think all three of these users are the same person. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
With you on the images (thanks for that piece) that indicate Caracas2000 is GJRF, but if you mentioned Caracas 1830 in the analysis above, I have missed it. I see GJRF and Caracas2000, but where is the conclusion about all three coming from (if it's above, I'm missing it). To my knowledge, knowing him years back, Caracas1830 has a good command of English, while Caracas2000/GJRF don't. I'm still not seeing any evidence linking all three of these users as you say. If you have some, I'll be surprised, because I believe they are in different countries, and if they're the same, it would mean that Caracas 2000 is feigning poor English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion I caused. :) I assumed Caracas1830 was already eliminated as his username has been wiped out. The three users I'm talking about are User:Caracas 2000, User:GJRFMorelligu and commons:User:Guillermo Ramos Flamerich, the one I brought into things. These are the three users I think are the same person. I don't even know if the last guy has edited here; I didn't have time to look. I agree that Caracas1830 is almost certainly not involved. --User:Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok, all clear, and in agreement now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
To complement the rationales from Caracas 2000's file uploads that were quoted above by Moonriddengirl, here are two from GJRFMorelligu's file uploads:
[2]: I´m the author of this paint Guillermo Ramos Flamerich
[3]: I´m the creator of this image, i took it on June 22, 2006, in the Francisco Fajardo Highway, Caracas, Venezuela Guillermo Ramos Flamerich
No question GJRFMorelligu and Caracas 2000 are the same.
Since he has made no attempts to reply on his talk page (he has made one edit since you brought it up there) I see no choice but to block his account.
CCI has already been created to coordinate cleanup here, but I know very little about other projects: Who should be notified about the problem at commons, or at esWp where he also edits? Amalthea 23:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see my talk page, Mbhiii sockpuppets (including probably User:Dawakin and User:Trift). An IP has once or twice now alerted me to such edits/editors, and I think they're probably right about these (caveat: I am not so sure about Somedifferentstuff, but there are thematic similarities). Might as well check them out (the ones that are still up and running): they do all edit the same things (articles like Money trail and Redistribution of wealth) in the same left-wing anti-establishment vein with, unfortunately, a bit too much OR and synthesis and way too much socking (I am convinced they can't help it anymore--it's a disorder). Drmies (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I forgot: I should have checked the CU box for yes... Drmies (talk)
And now I see that Trift and Somedifferentstuff were already looked into in a previous installment of this serial. Well, scratch them from the list, at least Stuff--I am pretty much convinced that Trift is Mbhiii, from style and behavior. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Master and prior socks are stale, will need to be decided by behavior. Can you provide diffs to show where they are alike? Amalthea 13:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Basically, block evasion, previous sockpuppetry. User's IP where they make it pretty obvious: [4] (tagged as suspected, user points to new account). Rename request on Simple English Wiki: [5]. Same edit pattern: [6]. (Although not directly relevant to SPI, I'd like to point out the user appears to be editing constructively now in the same topics, but that is no excuse for evading a block.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I am now reviewing the second WP:GAN by Khanassassin, and I would note that I can't believe he is the person once blocked for disruptive editing. Though I'm not quite familiar with SPI cases, it seems to be crystal clear that Khanassassin's editing is benefitial for Wikipedia regardless of his (suspected) previous record. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Which is why I was reluctant to bring this to attention and clarified with others first. Regardless, SPI is for multiple account investigations, not editor behaviour, and they (suspected) should not be using multiple undeclared accounts thus evading a block. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have to note that I might share responsibility here as I was directly solicitingUser:193.111.221.60 into account creation, though I wasn't aware neither of the issues with 7arazred's behaviour nor of the suspected sock puppetry issue. I understand that sock puppetry is a forbidden behaviour, but regarding that (1)7arazred appealed for unblocking and (2) (if Khanassassin is indeed 7arazred) he used alternative account to stick with constructive editing to degree when he collected a WP:Barnstar and several thanks, I would recommend a sanction of warning all the accounts involved about inappropriate behaviour and leaving things as they are (or merging accounts if possible). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Though it my sound silly, I have the same IP of the user of 7arazred. We're both fans of the same topic (in this case, Revolution's games). I am aware of his edits (promoting Revolution's articles without GAN, WikiProject Anti-Bieber etc.). We share the same IP/Home, but I don't want to reveal his name. I hoped that his WikiPast wouldn't effect my time on Wikipedia, but it seems, well.. it did. I know it sounds like I'm 7arazred himself, trying to come up with an excuse, but please understand that it's not me. Best --Khanassassin (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I would like to add that I will delete HELLKNOW's post from my talk, since I don't want other editors to get a wrong impression of me. And, like my WikiFriend, Czarkoff has confirmed, I have proven that my edits are benifitial to Wikipedia, and I plan to keep it like that :-) --Khanassassin (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I don't mind you remove it; it's customary to notify those involved. I still have to ask what this is about? Why did you rename instead of making your own account? This is a very WP:DUCKish case, but I'll leave it to clerks/checkuser to make conclusions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was at first using his account on other Wikipedias. I decided to rename them, but since I couldn't on en:, I decided to make a completly new one :-) --Khanassassin (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Larfers and Chris Jalled apparently attempted to create the page Bel Air, North Dakota as a prank. No such town exists. Larfers has a similar name to Lirfers who
Skip to: Submitting an SPI case • open cases • cases awaiting CheckUser
CheckUser is not for fishing. CheckUser is also not 
magic pixie dust, and should not be requested to investigate canvassing or meatpuppetry, 
duck test). Finally, while CheckUser will not be used to confirm that a user is editing from a specific IP address; quick requests may be made for the purpose of getting an underlying IP address or range blocked, however a CheckUser will not disclose what that IP address is.
![[1]](load://en.wikipedia.org/read/File:Juan_Bautista_Plaza.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Luis_Felipe_Ram%C3%B3n_y_Rivera_1.jpg&diff=62038343&oldid=62023798){kind=link}
![[3]](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Maria_Lionza.jpg&diff=60496720&oldid=60496228){kind=link}