Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay/Archive


G-Zay

G-Zay (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
10 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Brumbek (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 82.31.135.50 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

I suspected "Brumbek" to be a sockpuppet of User:G-Zay, but the recent developments just made it more evident that they are one and the same person.

  • User:G-Zay held a grudge against me before for removing his original research and personal synthesis of sources in articles as well as notifying him for it (1, 2, 3); later accused me of adding original research as a consequence of a disagreement; I asked for a source he previously had insisted on existing, after which he ceased to answer
  • one day later, "Brumbek" registers as a new member and exclusively edits the Resident Evil 2 article, threatening my current FA nomination by starting a seemingly content-based edit war
  • user acts unnaturally reasonable, yet at the same time continues reverting back
  • "Brumbek" is another of G-Zay's aliases used online (among Galvanizer and GZay2Stay) – evident with the recently uploaded Final Fantasy Tactics guide by "Brumbek" which contains the same amount of overwhelming praise for designer Yasumi Matsuno (section "Tribute to the Man, the Legend: Yasumi Matsuno" in guide, [1] etc.) that G-Zay usually introduces on message boards ("A proud Yasumi Matsuno and Ivalice Alliance fanboy": [2], [3], [4], [5] etc.)
  • I am convinced that the "Brumbek" sockpuppet is merely an attempt at provoking an edit war to prevent an FA promotion, out of some personal vendetta

Thus opened the investigation. Prime Blue (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional diffs: Would be a cirmcumvention of policies or sanctions against the parent account per WP:ILLEGIT (intentionally causing disruptions to the FA nomination by trying to start an edit war involving original research, tendentious editing [6], [7], [8]), additionally avoiding a conflict of interest and scrutiny of the main account by creating a strawman sock/"bad hand" account. The edits from April 3 and April 4 were performed by both accounts at the same time and fall in line chronologically ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]). Prime Blue (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My second sentence below was the long form of "no comment on the IP".
I can still only repeat that Brumbek and G-Zay are unreleated. A dozen interleaving edits to different articles at the exact same time, but made from different continents … that's as unrelated as can be shown. Amalthea 12:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The connectives seem to have been an enormous coincidence then. With the behavior shown, there's two disruptive editors that would come into question as well, so I'll remain skeptic about this account. Prime Blue (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2011 (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 - Seems likely; CU for confirmation. (Alternatively, Brumbek may be a sock of Darkness2005, who used to edit on the RE2 page. Can that be checked?) — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technical evidence suggests that Brumbek is Red X Unrelated to G-Zay and, FWIW, Darkness2005.
      Didn't look at the IP, would need diffs suggesting that it is involved in inappropriate use of multiple accounts per WP:ILLEGIT before I can consider it. Amalthea 15:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Both Brumbek and the IP have gone stale, so I'm closing for now. Relist if they become active again. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
07 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets
  • ArchadianJudge (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

I'm tempted to WP:DUCK it but a sleeper check could be helpful; simply see contribution history of the reported sockpuppet for evidence of methodical reversion of the master account's edits, along with repeated, incessant claims of not being G-Zay without being accused of being G-Zay (that I'm aware of). :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that G-Zay isn't just blocked, he's banned, and as such any contribution made by using a sockpuppet can and will be reverted on sight without further justification. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

The account and the IPs according to a recent discussion appear to be from the United Kingdom, as with all of G-Zay's accounts. They edit the same articles of interest (i.e. Final Fantasy). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For info (and although I know CUs normally don't comment on IPs), the IP he blatantly admitted to using right after being blocked is 89.240.44.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. It's awkward to be accused to be somebody you're not. Upon doing some research, this is not the first time that somebody has been accused to be G-Zay. I saw the contributions provided by G-Zay (most notably the Hiroyuki Ito page when it was at its most lengthy) and I was let down when most of it was revealed to be untrue. That said, I have noticed that almost every bit of info that is true, legit, and sourced, that has been contributed over the past few days/weeks by anonymous members has been reverted due to suspicion of it being by G-Zay. That never really bothered me. However, when I saw a legit and referenced contribution to the Final Fantasy XII page (my fave JRPG) by an anonymous member that was reverted due to people thinking it was G-Zay, that really pissed me off. I mean, are we seriously removing any legit info simply because we believe G-Zay is the one contributing it? I don't like that approach. As a result, I decided to join Wikipedia and try and add as much legit info myself. Granted, I will use some of the past contributions as a blueprint, and find sources and references to back them up (saves me time typing up new prose), but at least it won't get reverted just because of the person contributing it. Well, that was what I thought until this new accusation came up.

Anyway, I think I went off-topic, but to answer this investigation, I'm not G-Zay, but I will be using past prose (including that provided by him) as a blueprint when writing for pages. It saves me time thinking how I will write something in prose. I'll just use past people's prose and put my main focus in providing verified sources and references. ArchadianJudge (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to say that ArchadianJudge is G-Zay. That's what the SPI is for. But I do find it incredibly suspicious that, just after semiprotecting some of G-Zay's favorite articles after his latest round of showing up as an IP to change things, a brand-new user pops up and immediately does almost nothing but add back in the contributions that G-Zay had originally put in to articles relating to Hiroyuki Ito and Motomu Toriyama. And I mean literally nothing else; ArchadianJudge has over the course of the two days he has made edits on just reintroduced things that got stripped out of articles due to G-Zay's tendency to fabricate information and sources. I don't like that we keep blocking IPs and reverting changes by editors that we think are G-Zay. It really sucks. But you know what else sucks? Having to strip out massive amounts of information from dozens of articles because G-Zay is a serial liar who made up sources and made up information from real and fake sources, and then having to smack him down every few weeks when he pops up, thinking that maybe this time we won't notice. We're not idiots, even if we are hampered by process. I'm torn between hoping that you're not G-Zay and just missing how deep the problem runs with his "sourced" information, and hoping that you are, and I can stop second-guessing myself and just block every ip/user that fails the duck test from now on. --PresN 06:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make sure your facts are right before you start giving "evidence". I joined on July 1st, as I saw that some good info was removed from the Final Fantasy XII page due to people thinking the anonymous person that contributed it was G-Zay. I saw what was contributed and believed there was no reason why it should have been completely removed from the page, as it was all sourced and verified. In my dismay, I then joined Wikipedia to put the info back on the page. I figured that having an account would be make adding the info back more reputable. I also included my reasoning for joining on my talk page. In fact, that was my first Wikipedia edit. After that, I tried to edit the Final Fantasy XII page, but found I couldn't as it was semi-protected. Therefore, I decided to edit other pages related to Final Fantasy XII, instead. If you look at my contribution history, you'll find that all my edit on July 1st are on pages related to the game.
On July 5th, I was watching a video interview on YouTube about FFX|X-2 HD Remaster and it stated that Motomu Toriyama was the director of the game. I therefore decided to provide the info as a contribution to Wikipedia. However, I also edited the Motomu Toriyama page based on blueprints of past edits, its current references, and my own research of the credits of games that Toriyama has worked on. I equally did this with the Yoshinori Kitase page and the Hiroyuki Ito page. I even went so far as to contributing the official box art for the game JJ. Lastly, I returned to the Final Fantasy XII page and added back the info that the anonymous user contributed and was reverted. I also provided my own prose of info to the Legacy section of the page.
I'm just saying all this so you can you can correct your misunderstanding and wrong information. If you want to provide evidence of what I've done, at least make it accurate. ArchadianJudge (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious G-Zay sockpuppet.

  • joined the day G-Zay's newest IP edits were reported
  • exclusively the same area of interest (Square Enix articles, 12 pages edited both by both G-Zay and ArchadianJudge)
  • same type of edits: endless credits and infobox changes, Hiroyuki Ito praise, Yoshinori Kitase bashing, wrongful attributions to game creators, mixing facts with fake information to feign reliability
  • immediately comments on and denies sockpuppet allegations although as a new user, he shouldn't even know where these discussions take place

Some diffs showing the similarities:

Expect many more of those accounts to pop up from now on as he has a dynamic IP. But he's easily recognisable as he always acts the same.Xiomicronpi (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as mentionned, see the contributions, and especially the edit summaries; methodically undoing the removal of G-Zay's editrs is a rather obvious sign. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To defend myself against the aforementioned bullet points above:

  • I only joined when legit info that was contributed from a anonymous user was removed from the Final Fantasy XII page due to the belief it was done by G-Zay. Even if you believe G-Zay contributed the info, that's no reason to get rid of legit and verified info from the page. I saw this happen, and that's why I joined Wikipedia; I wanted to contribute the same info myself. Here's a comparison of the contribution by an anonymous user and the revert done against them: (July 1). I saw this revert happen by checking the page history and that's why I decided to chime in by joining and contributing back the anonymous users legit info. So basically, me adding back reverted info is not solid evidence that I'm G-Zay.
  • I'm mainly here to edit the Final Fantasy XII page. However, when I joined, it was semi-protected, so I decided to edit pages related to the game instead. I then disappeared for a few days to wait until I could actually edit the page. However, on June 5th, I found a video interview that stated Motomu Toriyama was the director of FFX|X-2 HD Remaster. This made me come back to Wikipedia and contribute the info. However, I ended up looking at the page history of games and staff related to him and making edits based on reverts of pass contributions by anonymous users that were simply removed due to the suspicion of it being G-Zay.
  • You're exaggerating my types of editing. I've only edited the info box for a few games and none of my edits have been wrong. I haven't praised Hiroyuki Ito. In fact, I've praised him less in my edit than the ones that Xiomicronpi contributed, as I removed the statement in the opening that has all the FF games he worked on as the battle system designer. My main contribution to the Hiroyuki Ito page was added some NES games he worked on and presenting his credits with better prose, such as "Battle system designer", rather than "Battle design" or "Battle plan". Also, what Yoshinori Kitase bashing? I have done no such act. Look at my reverted info by Xiomicronpi and there's nowhere that I bashed Kitase: (July 6). In fact, the Kitase page is already filled with a major lie that I tried to remove. It states that Kitase was the "Chief Director" of Final Fantasy X, but the game credits don't say this at all and neither does Kitase himself in any interview. Where is the proof for such a statement? Lastly, there's nothing wrong about my attributions to each game creator, I research extensively before adding any credit info to a page.
  • As for me immediately commenting on and denying sockpuppet allegations, that was a obvious action for me, as all the pages I edited are on my Watchlist. While trying to submit an edit to the Final Fantasy XII page, I was told that somebody had edited the page in the interim, resulting in a edit conflict. I checked their edit, only to find that it was simply a revert of my previous edit with a statement that basically said I was G-Zay and not welcome here. I immediately reverted their edit and stated, "I'm not G-Zay. I'm a separate contributor that is adding verified info." You can see the comparison of our edits here: (July 7). I decided to check my Watchlist after this, only to find all my edits had been reverted on the grounds of people believing I was G-Zay. As a result, I simply reverted the edits and included the statement in return, "I'm not G-Zay. Don't revert my legit contributions just because you think I'm somebody else". Go and check my contribution history and you'll see this to be true.

Anyway, I'm not going to continue defending myself on this matter, I'll just wait for the SPI check to come through, as it will prove my innocence. ArchadianJudge (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment: G-Zay seems to have a history of these kinds of things elsewhere too: Gamefaqs, where G-Zay has a whole host of different accounts: [43] [44] [45] [46] and another called Galv. G-Zay appears to have a similar reputation there, of someone who clamours for attention by creating threads and discussions around false/deliberately misinterpreted information. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Before any check can be run, we need at least one diff from the master or a previous sock and at least one diff from the suspected sock, supporting an explanation as to how the accounts are suspected to be related. WilliamH (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A technical connection between the two accounts is  Possible and looks somewhat  Likely. WilliamH (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the findings that a technical connection is  Likely and by overwhelming behavioural evidence, I have blocked and tagged. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Closing. The account has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
27 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

User has been making disruptive edits by posting on FFX and misrepresenting sources before his IPs were blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xiomicronpi has already revealed that this sockpuppet is G-Zay. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • I'm seriously seeing no evidence that Skyjet is G-Zay; the user made a single talk page post and unless it is precisely something G-Zay has said in the past I see no reason to believe this is G-Zay on the sole basis that "they both express opinions that are not favourable to Kitase"; seriously, sometimes unrelated people hold similar opinions (!). There's certainly far too little evidence to jump in, revert, and tag as a sock; unless there is something I'm missing entirely. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not seeing how this editor was "revealed" to be G-Zay merely because another editor also holds that opinion without presenting evidence. Like PresN, I think it is likely that this is G-Zay, but without a shred of real evidence I'd be disappointed that we jump to conclusions on this. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think in this case though, we should just have to wait for more evidence to show up to prove that this user really is G-Zay, since this sock, in my view, is most likely him. Damn (please excuse my profanity here), maybe I was too quick to deduce that and for that, I am sorry... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that IPs and new accounts have been popping up left and right since April 2013 to convince others that they are not G-Zay but to edit pages in exactly the same way as him is pretty telling. There is behavourial evidence in this new case: G-Zay spent the better part of this year trying to remove Kitase's director role on FF10 ([47][48][49][50][51][52]), always ignoring or deleting the sources given and pointing out in edit summaries that Kitase is credited in the game as producer. I would have had more doubts about Skyjet89 being G-Zay if it hadn't been for this and the outrage at the sockpuppetry accusations which we have seen so often from G-Zay in the past ([53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]). Sorry if this might seem rash. It's just that G-Zay has a history of very malicious sockpuppeting practices.Xiomicronpi (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the Dec. 29th edits, I'm inclined to give credible weight to allegations that Skyjet89 is a sockpuppet of G-Zay. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I think we have sufficient evidence to conclude that Skyjet89 is G-Zay, especially given [65]. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just leaving a quick post-archival note to leave a trace of that fact I also blocked User:Not-Here-2-Stay as a sockpuppet of G-Zay. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13 February 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

Evidence per WP:DUCK:

  • exclusively same area of interest, all articles except for one were previously edited by G-Zay (all Square Enix related)
  • re-adding the exact same passages as an earlier G-Zay sockpuppet ([66] / [67]); not to mention that FF12's influence on Xenoblade is one of the things G-Zay stresses ad nauseam ([68][69])
  • trying to add more Hiroyuki Ito credits to non-biographical articles ([70] / [71])
  • frequent edits to credits lists, re-adding edits by earlier G-Zay sockpuppet ([72] / [73])
  • still adding information on a PlayStation port of The Last Remnant ([74][75] / [76]) Xiomicronpi (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

  • See all of G-Zay's previous suspected/confirmed socks and ip address socks at User:Sjones23/G-Zay. --PresN 19:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - Endorsing a check per behavioral evidence above. The master is stale but the last sock was blocked in January. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of clarity, the last report led to the block of User:Skyjet89, but as noted at the bottom, I also blocked User:Not-Here-2-Stay (without filing a full new SPI) as a sock of G-Zay on Jan. 3rd. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grotesque Desires and Not-Here-2-Stay are  Possible.
  • The following are  Confirmed to one another, but are technically Red X Unrelated to the above:
​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged the confirmed socks (who were already indef-blocked). Blocked and tagged Grotesque Desires on behavourial evidence and  Possible match to another absolutely certain sock Not-Here-2-Stay. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvidrim!, none of the accounts above are confirmed to G-Zay, and the eight in the list directly above were editing from a few thousand miles from where G-Zay seems to be located. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the correction, I seemed to recall Skyjet89 had been CU-confirmed to the master or another confirmed sock. I however agree with User:King of Hearts that the behaviour is sufficient evidence, as well as a CU-match to at least one other account (KyleP090) already blocked on behavioural grounds for being a sock of G-Zay. This leaves very little room for doubt. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing left to do here, closing case. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Disaster999 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility
  • Continuation of edits to Hiroyuki Ito, which G-Zay famously ravaged, right after the several months long SPP expired. The previous socks, as well as IPs, all edited heavily the article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

This user, who has an an extensive history of sockpuppeting, also ravaged two BLPs: Tetsuya Nomura ([77]) and Yasumi Matsuno ([78]). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Already blocked on behavioural grounds; requesting sleeper check since the user has a history of socking over significant periods of time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No additional accounts found on the IP used by Disaster999.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23 September 2014
Suspected sockpuppets
  • ErikBJohnson89 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • RezDude83 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • JakeEHere (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • SargeQ3 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • StarHawkFan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • SubzeroMK2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • KyleRoberts99 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • RezGamer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • EkriirkE90 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • RadRacerFan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • RadRacerNES (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

User has been making similar disruptive edits to Final Fantasy X and Yoshinori Kitase ([79], [80]), both of which G-Zay famously ravaged. See also User:Sjones23/G-Zay#Editing_behaviour. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Specific diffs by previous socks and the current SSP: compare this diff by ErikBJohnson, and this one by TylerJamesHere, the same one by KyleP090, a similar one by ArchadianJudge and another related edit by G-Zay himself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, and also obviously a previous sock Erik bjohnson confirmed to other socks (although that ring was not CU-confirmed directly to the master, there was no room for doubt based on behaviour, see SPI-archive). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:29, 23 September 2014 (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
  • ErikBJohnson89 already indef-blocked by Keegan because he's pretty much certainly G-Zay, given the evidence. Request CU to check for other related accounts since there is a history of hidden socks. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already checked the ErikBJohnson89 account. I have no way of verifying through CU whether or not this is G-Zay. I saw an account seemingly make new account for every edit that they made and blocked the accounts down to one, left unblocked with a note to only use one account. It's all in my blocking log from early today. Keegan (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I listed them all as SSPs, and indef-blocked RadRacerNES as a sock of G-Zay also. I will await the CU check before tagging any of them, although the contribution histories are blatant enough (and there are a few cases of similar account names, like Kyle). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case I wasn't clear, I already ran CU on these accounts. If the clerks agree, this can be archived. Keegan (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh gosh, sorry, I literally had not realized you were a CU! Am I correct in reading your comments as "Socks listed above  Confirmed to each other, but a CU check between the socks listed here and the master or previous socks is  Not possible", Keegan? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem I was not clear :) You are correct to read my comments that way. Sorry for the confusion, I don't pop in here that often. Thanks for the work! Keegan (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: All socks blocked and tagged. Marked for closure. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
08 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

Same interests on the Yoshinori Kitase article ([81], [82]). G-Zay has made some libelous edits on that particular article per User:Sjones23/G-Zay#Editing behaviour ([83]). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:21, 8 April 2015 (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 note: @Sjones23: Please, provide WP:diffs of both SergeDQ and G-Zay (or previous socks) to illustrate their similarity in editing. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I happen to be familiar with G-Zay -- thus, sock  Blocked and tagged per edits to Yoshinori Kitase about his role as Producer/Director (comparing edits with all the previous socks and IPs in the article's history). I've also re-protected the article. The username is also possibly a portmanteau "spoofing" of the usernames of Sergecross73 (or the Chrono Cross protagonist it's inspired by) and DeltaQuad (or of the Dragon Quest series) although that may be just me connecting dots that don't exist. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
09 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

See below. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:08, 9 April 2015 (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
  • These are all  Technically indistinguishable:
    • SergeDQ (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Cyberbob1980 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • MightyMaxFan94 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • CyberBobJHere (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Crozier092 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • EricBJ099 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • BrettRJ082 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • CyberBulb09 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • JamesRBWilliams (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Stinkles0099 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Stinkles0900 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Jakeezachs (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • EkriirkE00089 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • CyberBob0220 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • RezDudeHere99 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Burpy87 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • CyberBob1999 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Jaredcroberts (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Cloudyo009 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • BrockJRobins (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • PaperJakee (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • SubzeroChillin98 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • NannyEric (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Erikthealien82 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Cyberbob0999 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Crezyman099 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Ekriirke0089 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Dizzymage80 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Subzerochillyo (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Dizzymage85 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: DoRD: Jeez, I hesitated about requesting a sleeper check yesterday, but I guess I really should have, eh!!!!!! Thanks for running it anyways. I will clerk the case shortly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All socks  Blocked and tagged -- I'll also notify the few editors who were involved in cleaning up after G-Zay since he has a history of BLPvios ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've come across some of these names here and there recently, but their mistakes were all pretty overt and cleaned up almost immediately, from the ones I've looked over. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looked through all the contributions; looks like everything he did regarding BLPs got reverted soon after. Most of these socks had 0-3 edits; it seems he just made a new account every time he logged on. --PresN 18:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
  • Reader960 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 82.80.181.49 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Flimflamthezimzam (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

See these edits: [84] [85] [86]. The editor doesn't listen at all to what I say (see [87]). See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/G-Zay/Archive. Peter238 (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: About a month ago, User:BrockJRobins (one of the sock puppets of G-Zay) also edit warred with other users about that same sentence. See Special:Contributions/BrockJRobins - his only contribution was vandalism/edit warring. I strongly suspect he continues his activity on the aforementioned accounts. Peter238 (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now that Talk:General American is being vandalised, maybe the IP's who do it (every time a different one) are worth checking? Peter238 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed. Do not link to or include material that may reveal personal information about an editor. Doing so is outing and will be dealt with accordingly."

I feel quite unjustly attacked by this comment and accusation of "sockpuppeting". If you look at my edit history, you will see a years-long record of contribution on my part, in an attempt to make Wikipedia as expansive and accurate as possible. Never in my life have I EVER had any intention whatsoever of causing harm to this site, and on the contrary have spent more time here than anywhere else! In addition to this, I have been collaborating with a friend on a new and highly-cited article for the past several weeks. The user Frogpenguin is indeed related to me - she was collaborating with me on the article draft in question, and we had both worked exceptionally hard to ensure its accuracy and relevance.

I have been encouraging her to create her own account in order for her to make her own edits as she has read more and more of Wikipedia's policies and procedures and therefore become more acquanted with the editing software and how to utilize it effectively on her own. Any viewing of my contribution history (as well as Frogpenguin's) will certainly confirm this. Again, I reiterate that we have spent enormous amounts of time on this site - and particularly on the creation of this new article - in order to make Wikipedia the best site it can possibly be. Naturally my collaborator and I are quite distressed by this accusation, as it undermines all the hard work we have done and taints the positive experience we both have had - an experience that has so far been overwhelmingly positive. If there are any technical mistakes or details that should be changed or should have been in the past, please let me know as this is the only way I can learn to become a better contributor. Thank you for listening to my reply. Frogpenguin will post a quick followup of this message after I have saved it, in order to confirm that we are indeed two separate users with two separate accounts, and in two separate locations.

Bomb319 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is right above your post, the only thing the admins established is that the IP's are not the same. Make sure you understand a quote before using it. Peter238 (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're not one of the users I named, somebody else did it below our messages. But the point still stands. Peter238 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought I should confirm that I've been helped extensively by the user Bomb 319. Although Bomb 319 and I initially used the same account for a short period of time, this is because we often collaborated in person since we live in the same area. He taught me how to do edits on my own so that I could use my own account to work on Wikipedia. My intentions were solely to do the best job I could to help Wikipedia and as soon as I felt more confident, I started using my own account. As a matter of fact, I have spent several hours working on references on this article so that I can do an even better job on my next one. Thank you for your understanding.

Frogpenguin (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Frogpenguin[reply]


Hi,

I just wanted to be perfectly clear that I do apologize for any errors potentially made by myself or my protegée. I am not even one hundred percent sure that I even know what's going ON in this topic, as I very rarely post comments on talk pages but rather exclusively edit main articles. I also have no idea whatsoever how my activities relate to this user "G-Zay", as neither I nor Frogpenguin have the remotest idea who he is. I have never had multiple accounts. As Frogpenguin is brand-new, of course sha has not done so either. Like I had previously mentioned, she had creater her new account after a short period of collaborating together in order for me to teach her the basics of editing and style, neither of us had ever operated multiple accounts for any reason. I have been an active member of Wikipedia for long enough to know how careful and vigilant we have to be in the face of vandals; the very success of the project depends on how attentive we are as editors. In fact, in several ways I am quite glad this happened, as it demonstrates very stringent and exclusionist principles which I believe are absolutely vital to the success of any long-term open collaboration.

Having said that, I strongly feel the need thoroughly explain my modus operandi regarding Wikipedia, as I am not yet well-known in the community. I hope to become more and more proficient over time and as my schedule opens up. It is therefore extremely important to me, my collaborator, and to the overall quality and success of my article (as well as any future articles and contributions) that I adamantly explain to all who are interested, that absolutely NO "sock-puppetry" or any other violations have EVER occurred on either my account or Frogpenguin's. :)

I do sincerely thank you again for your time and vigilance. PS - if anyone has the time, I would really appreciate a detailed explanation as to how exactly I ended up being cited on this page so I can prevent anything like this from ever happening again. Cheers.

Bomb319 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have typed Bomb319 without a space. Sorry again for all the confusion. Frogpenguin (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Frogpenguin[reply]

sonichedgehog_ on Freenode IRC asked me to do the edit [88]. I did it, then I looked at the history of this page and decided to revert the edit. sonichedgehog_ asked me in private message, when I was in #haskell. Safinaskar (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also have been asked on Freenode IRC (megamanfan, IP: 216.252.38.102, I have the PM log if needed), on May 12th, to just delete two sentences because "sources are outdated" and the user doesn't know how to do. I had quickly checked the edit history, if there was some edit war, but looked legit to me. Also there was a "sources are needed" note. So I did as I was asked to do. Now I feel very naive. As far as I can see, my edit has been undone by someone else. My apologies for the trouble I've caused. I won't do this again. Ani (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haytham-med left this response on my talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: @Peter238: What is the connection between those accounts and G-Zay? Provide some diffs, please. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - I'm very familiar with G-Zay, and let me say right off the bat -- I was surprised when BrockJRobins was CUconfirmed to G-Zay, due to the topic of editing being wildly different; I remain not totally convinced they are, in fact, G-Zay, despite technical evidence. That being said, it appears clear to me that BrockJRobins, Reader960, 82.80.181.49 and Flimflamthezimzam are all arguing about the exact same point, so I'm endorsing CU anyways (at least for a sleeper check, since last few times it turned up a metric ton of accounts) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, I'm fairly certain Brayden96 is G-Zay from the edits to FF topics (and specifically Yoshinori Kitase, compare Brayden96 to ErikBJohnson89 or KyleP090); in fact, I'm certain enough to  Blocked and tagged right away, but hopefully it can used as a starting point for a sleeper check. Somehow, this 4 years old account was never picked up or reported (!?!?!) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three accounts are Red X Unrelated to each other and to G-Zay
Brayden96 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Reader960 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Flimflamthezimzam (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
no No comment with respect to IP address(es) Mike V • Talk 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something very odd here. Other accounts which seem to be proxying Flimflam's edit(s):
Ahatzis~enwiki (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Haytham-med (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Southparkfan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Safinaskar (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Flimflam's edit
Ahatzis~enwiki's edit
Haytham-med's edit
Southparkfan made this edit which was solicited on IRC ("Requested by user on IRC") and then undid his edit.
Safinaskar did the same and also undid his edit with summary "I was fooled by this sonichedgehog_ ([email protected]) from Freenode IRC, too"
  • I expect users to explain their actions in the above section "Comments by other users" and silence will not look good. Someone tell your mods in IRC to ban that user and until things are sorted I'm full-protecting that article. We may not be finished here Mike but I want to hear from these editors who are participating first.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 216.252.38.102 is currently soliciting edits (specifically the removal of the word "controversially" from General American via IRC. They claim to have been told to do this after e-mailing the OTRS team via [email protected]. Could @Rjd0060: confirm this is of course total nonsense, thanks. Nick (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I handled the VRTS ticket # 2015051710007353 and recommended they bring this up on the article talk page. In no way did I mention anything relating to IRC. This was before I saw there had been a string of attempts to change it and that it was already being discussed there. Mkdwtalk 17:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 216.252.38.102 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Draft:Fern G.Z. Carr and Bomb319 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Frogpenguin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are related. Bomb319's edit to General American doesn't seem to be a coincidence and Frog is an SPA centered around that draft.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CyberBob0002 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) edited American exceptionalism and BioShock_Infinite (like sock User:Dizzymage80 and his blocked IP).
  • Editors should never proxy edits for others as has been done here. Indeffing Reader960, Flimflam, Bomb, Frog and CyberBob...socks/meatpuppets. I'll modify protection levels shortly. Closing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appending with additional evidence: Some comparisons between Bomb319 and the master. Name from Giant Bomb video game where GZay edited and also edits Final Fantasy series just like the sockmaster, also edits other video games like Princess Zelda, SimTower. Also edits General American article.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-archive note: Unblocked Bomb319 and Frogpenguin based on their appeals. They admitted to having a compromised account but I do not believe their activities are related to the sockmaster in this case.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
30 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
  • AaronSimmons123 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Plastic Gear Solid (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 92.17.208.164 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 81.170.96.12 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

Evidence per WP:DUCK: exclusively same area of interest per behavourial evidence, only edits credits on Hiroyuki Ito. Xiomicronpi (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2015 (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 don't think the evidence is conclusive enough for a behavioral block. However, I ran a check because the accounts do show similar behavior to past accounts. Expanding the work section: Plastic Gear Solid Grotesque Desires Adding that he's a game/battle designer: ArchadianJudge AaronSimmons123
CU data shows that AaronSimmons123 and Plastic Gear Solid are  Confirmed to each other. Comparing these two users to the archive gives me a  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) match to G-Zay. no No comment with respect to IP address(es) Mike V • Talk 18:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are both confirmed socks of one another and given the editing overlap, I went ahead and blocked both named accounts. If someone feels there is sufficient evidence to tag them as G-Zay socks, feel free to do so. I'm going to leave the IPs alone as they have not edited in a few days. Tiptoety talk 19:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

Same editing style as previous sockpuppets (see behavioural evidence) and interests ([89], [90], [91], [92]). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:52, 15 May 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

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Pretty certain this passes the DUCK threshold, requesting sleeper check due to past history of maintaining vast networks of socks. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing, sock already  Blocked and tagged by Sergecross73 & Sjones23 respectively. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

I think all of these accounts are connected per WP:CAST, WP:COVERUP, WP:PRECOCIOUS, WP:IDENTICAL, WP:BRIEFLY, WP:ACTING, WP:SOCKERR, WP:SPASOCK, WP:DUCK and partially also WP:ALWAYS.

Evidence that those are sockpuppets of one account

  • The first edits of Dudejets89, Zero077 and Bulbbulb29054 were made on 25th April, 29th April and 4th May, respectively, whereas the first edits of Geoffreybmx and MrBadger42 were made on 1st June and 6th June, respectively.
  • This is strange:
    • Here Dudejets89 supports Zero077 on 30th April, five days after the first edit of Dudejets89 and one day after the first edit of Zero077. That was the 6th edit of Dudejets89.
    • Here Bulbbulb29054 supports Zero077 on 6th May, two days after the first edit of Bulbbulb29054 and eight days after the first edit of Zero077. That was the 13th edit of Bulbbulb29054.
    • Here Bulbbulb29054 supports Dudejets89 on 14th June.
    • Here Zero077 supports MrBadger42 on 31st July, and here is a strange edit summary MrBadger42 wrote after a "discussion" we "had" on Talk:American English (here is how it looked, I kid you not). That edit summary is one of the main reasons I'm writing here.
    • Geoffreybmx's love of various sports looks to me like a rather failed attempt at building a fake personality. Look at his user page and the following diffs: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]. Notice how after that last edit he jumps right into discussing vowel charts of General American with me (actually it was more like trying to impose his flawed POV on me) and then disappears from Wikipedia (a theme that is shared among these accounts).
  • All of those have made relatively few edits and all but Geoffreybmx have made edits to either American English or Talk:American English.
  • However, Geoffreybmx was borderline harassing me over vowel charts (which he clearly didn't understand enough about to argue with me about them) that I changed on General American, which is an article that is very closely related to American English. I admit that I was at times less than nice to him (which I apologize for), but I think I was at least somewhat justified in that. He was extremely stubborn and unwilling to acknowledge parts of what I wrote. That behavior was a lot like...
  • MrBadger42's behavior on Talk:American English#General American section. In both of these discussions, users refuse to acknowledge parts of my messages (often important, like the fact that the interview with William Labov he linked to doesn't disagree with Atlas of North American English) and are trying to impose their sources on me to the exclusion of any different scholarly POV. They both have some problems with drawing at least partially false conclusions from sources and emotional editing (which I also have some problems with, that's true), with the latter showing in how they argue about things they don't fully understand as if they did, how they rush to save changes and then edit the message multiple times, the fact that they post walls of text, that the longer their messages are the more likely they are to contain orthographic and/or grammatical mistakes, etc. Here are two posts of Geoffreybmx and MrBadger42 that show how many mistakes they can make in one message: [102], [103].
  • Three of those accounts (Zero077, Bulbbulb29054 and Geoffreybmx) went to @A Train: and no other admin with their problems. What's the chance of that?

Evidence that those are sockpuppets specifically of G-Zay

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

The following are  Confirmed:

Can't tell you whether they are definitely G-Zay or not (the last confirmed sock is a bit on the stale side) but it seems to fit the MO. All blocked and tagged. Yunshui 雲水 13:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Could someone please block Vice values Virtue (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) per WP:DUCK ([107]). I understand the account is long since stale, but looking at these socks' contributions, some of them had been inactive for months before suddenly returning. We don't need an unblocked sock lurking about. Sro23 (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23: Done. --PresN 18:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone is blocked now, marking case for close. Sro23 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

In August, Bradhill87 was banned as a sockpuppet of G-Zay (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay/Archive#19 August 2017). Because both Bradhill87 and Andynphillips made edits exclusively to Talk:Philadelphia English (in fact, to the very same discussion, started by Andynphillips and then continued by Bradhill87) and Bradhill87/G-Zay/whoever this guy is has proved again and again to be a highly disruptive individual that loves to abuse multiple accounts, it's virtually impossible for them to be unrelated. I won't provide diffs, but only because every single edit they made is relevant, and Andynphillips has made just one edit. Just see their contributions: [108], [109]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I've added Juliep94 and Yaryard, I'm very certain they're the same user. See User talk:Wolfdog#lifelong speakers (it's hidden, look for discussions from September 2016). Some of the relevant diffs are [110], [111] and [112]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:55, 7 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

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • While these are all probably the same person, they've also been inactive long enough that blocking them is unlikely to accomplish anything. Closing without action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Awesomemember (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Usernamebradly (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Blastprocessor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

Per WP:DUCK and the SI from August (please read that one).

Here's what Wolfdog has to say about them (source: User talk:Wolfdog):

Blastprocessor has only ever edited the General American, Western New England English, American English, and North American English regional phonology pages, appearing out of the blue this past November.‎ In the lead section of Western New England English, Blastprocessor removed detailed information with a specific source to replace in favor of broader information with a vaguer (and vaguely cited) source -- this same second source already mentioned in the body of the article later on anyway multiple times with actual page numbers and specifics given. I reverted Blastprocessor's edit, summarizing "You're repeating yourself and the grammar is inconsistent" and mentioning the overabundance of their source. We then reverted each other's edits for another round. Blastprocessor seemed to be ignoring my comments, citing merely "Please don't delete my source" when they themself were already deleting a source in the original version. Blastprocessor is also involved in an ongoing, unresolved dispute with me on Talk:American English about wanting to include the same vaguely cited source from the previous conflict on American English (where, incidentally, user Ajd also caught Blastprocessor flagrantly misquoting this source). This led us to talking in circles, with Blastprocessor bringing up the same argument each time, while I discredited and later tried to just move past this argument and come to something of a compromise (in fact, even creating a compromise from the very beginning of this dispute which went ignored). Blastprocessor, meanwhile, made no attempt to debunk or counter my arguments, instead simply repeating their own stance with "I see no reason why..." kind of talk. I also tried to educate this user on how to cite sources better on their user talk page, where, weirdly, Blastprocessor now suddenly suggested the idea of compromising as if I had never been offering compromises earlier. Usernamebradly has only ever edited the General American page, also appearing out of the blue, also this past November. Their first move was to remove sourced and relevant information. They later added information to the General American page with regard to Western New England (and with typos), strangely adding this information to the section "Popularity" rather than the more appropriate section "Regional Origins". They decided to change "American Jews" to "Russian Americans" (something I haven't yet verified) and, strangely, later added an already-cited source (and information) to an unrelated section. Mr KEBAB has also made the interesting observation that both Usernamebradly and Blastprocessor identically wrote about the "Northern City Vowel Shift", a presumed misspelling or erroneous form of "Northern Cities Vowel Shift" (with Blastprocessor later on changing to the correct spelling).

Does that remind you of something?

Also, they have also been making the same and rather strange spelling error in the form of Northern Cities Vowel Shift being spelled as Northern City Vowel Shift (which Wolfdog mentions above). Here are the diffs: [113], [114] and [115], [116], [117], [118]. Here's the confirmed sockpuppet of G-Zay (Zero077) making the same mistake: [119], and so did Awesomemember: [120] (I might've been wrong about his edit being dishonest though, but that's another story).

Awesomemember Blastprocessor and Usernamebradly also post walls of texts and make a lot of spelling mistakes when they get emotional - again, see the SI from August 2017.

I'd also like you to reconsider the previous SI (the one from November). G-Zay is often returning to his old sockpuppets, so the more of them are banned the better. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:40, 13 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

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Per history of multiple sleepers. Please compare these accounts and look for any more. Sro23 (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the current data and recent CU logs, the following accounts are  Confirmed to the master:
    • Baskineddy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Blastprocessor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Brockcalroz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Daytonausa4000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Kalsebz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Kof502 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Memphisjoshua (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Paullywantsacracker (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Usernamebradly (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

Per WP:DUCK and the last three investigations. The moment he starts editing he goes to General American and starts edit warring there. Then, he goes to User talk:Wolfdog to talk with him. The sentence Many linguist don't believe today that "General American" exist is a dead giveaway as to who we're dealing with here.

I won't provide diffs only because pretty much all of his edit history is relevant here, so just check the contributions. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2018 (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

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - per sockmaster's history of operating multiple socks at once. Note diffs here: [121] [122] [123] [124]. G-Zay socks have been edit-warring that particular article for years now. Sro23 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between  Unlikely and  Possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Behavior is compelling enough. Please indef sock. Sro23 (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sro23 -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing. Sro23 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11 March 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Slywizard21 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 76.11.187.69 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

Per WP:DUCK. Both Slywizard21 and the IP have exclusively edited American English-related articles. Slywizard21 vanished after performing 2 edits, which is pretty much in line with how G-Zay's sockpuppets behave.

  • Here, Slywizard21's edit is not in agreement with the source he cited.
  • Here, the IP added errorenous info to Inland Northern American English, saying both that The Northern Cities Vowel Shift is the most significant change in English vowel pronunciation in a thousand years (it's not - what about the Great Vowel Shift or at least the London Vowel Shift?) and that NCVS has made Upper Midwestern speech so distinctive that Saturday Night Live mocked it in two skits, “Bill Swerski’s Superfans” and “1-600-LANSING. (Inland Northern American English isn't Upper Midwestern Speech). He repeated those mistakes here. Notice how the IP forgot to write the second quotation mark in “1-600-LANSING”. G-Zay is known to misspell words and make grammatical errors.

It'd be great if someone checked whether other accounts/IP's are related to these. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2018 (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

 In progress. This may take some time before I post any findings.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following two accounts are  Confirmed to each other and  Inconclusive to the master:
  • Blocked without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both tagged as suspected to G-Zay. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


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

Relevant diffs: [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]. All of his edits concern either American English or Wolfdog, an editor that has a long history of interactions with sockpuppets of G-Zay, who seems to have an agenda of trying to make him look like a fool by talking to him from all of the sockpuppet accounts.

He also contacted Wolfdog by pinging him on his own user talk page rather than going directly to Wolfdog's user talk page, which he had no problem with the second he realized we're discussing possible sockpuppetry of his. Strange, no? This might've been an attempt to make himself look like an inexperienced user, something G-Zay has already done.

In his message on his user talk page, Strenxfong mentioned Eastern New England English, an article that G-Zay edited as Videoneon two months ago (see [132]). Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2018 (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

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - The evidence presented is persuasive enough for a duck block but CU normally uncovers several missed accounts for this sockmaster, so please check for sleepers. Sro23 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed + McFalcon86 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


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

I am posting this for Kbb2 (formerly User:Mr KEBAB), who originally posted this here. Officer781 (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm User:Mr KEBAB, writing from a brand new account because I don't know/remember the password to the former. I can't write a proper report yet (the account is fresh) and I hope someone converts this to one or decides to check the users despite the place I'm posting this in. Anyway, there are four suspected sockpuppets of G-Zay, and I hope this will be taken care of in some way:

The last two accounts haven't been active for some time, but since G-Zay is known to resurrect his sleepers, they're worth looking into anyway.

The first one (Jakeroberts93) is quite obvious - after appearing out of nowhere after more than 2 years of not editing, he pretty much jumps straight into demanding a bigger punishment for me (see [158] and [159]), 10 hours after returning to Wikipedia. He must've been watching my talk page, which is something I've caught G-Zay on doing at least 2 times (if not with my own talk page then with the talk page of Wolfdog). I mean... compare the hour my block has changed ([160]) after the infamous message to the admin with the time he posted his message on the Administrators' noticeboard ([161]). It's like he started writing it pretty much immediately after the admin changed my block. What's the chance of all that? I'd also like to remind you that a few months ago G-Zay had an outburst very similar to mine, which I immediately removed - see [162]. G-Zay is also a harasser himself - see what he does to Wolfdog. Not from this particular account of course, but see the previous reports.

Before complaining about me, he also voted on Talk:Received Pronunciation (see [163]) saying nothing but "I agree". G-Zay is known to be a manipulator of polls (see a couple of previous reports, made mostly by me). That particular poll probably wasn't manipulated, but see 1, 2 and 3. There also are some typos in his messages, like "alot" or "harrass" and lack of capitalization ("wikipedia"). G-Zay is known not to care too much about proper spelling. There is also a confirmed sockpuppet of G-Zay called User:Jaredcroberts, which is a very similar name. That account was banned in April 2015, 7 months before the first edit of Jakeroberts93.

The second one (SandyPetersen) was also easy to spot - the first 2 edits were made only to General American (an article that's been rather heavily targeted by G-Zay, especially what the bit he changed in the first two diffs), whereas the subsequent 5 edits were only about his first two edits. But at least he didn't edit war with Wolfdog, which reverted both of his edits to General American.

The third one (Turklshdelight) has been edit warring and treating Wikipedia as if it were his personal blog and his knowledge were literally superior to what reputable sources say. The way he interacted with me on his user talk page reminded me of this report from almost a year ago and this outburst. He said strange things, that I was following him and what not. I should've reported him sooner, but I couldn't find these links to back up my claims.

The last one (Supermos127) was already reported a month ago by Wolfdog, but it was rejected. Well, the Supermos127 was harassing Wolfdog on LGBT linguistics and all of his four edits are about that. He also makes typos or grammatical mistakes, like "deleted" for "deleting", "your" for "you're".

Also, notice one thing - the last two accounts stopped editing pretty much immediately after (or shortly before) someone had either said they were gonna report them or actually did that. See [164] (here is his latest message, posted 6 hours later) and [165] (here is his latest message, posted a day earlier). Kbb2 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2018 (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 - It's definitely G-Zay, editing the same types of articles and following around the same group of editors, but a sleeper check is warranted. Please compare the accounts to each other and to the socks in the archive. Sro23 (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated. Jakeroberts93 and SandyPetersen are  Confirmed to each other. The remaining two are not related to anyone. The master edits from one large country in one continent consistently. Jakeroberts93 and Sandypetersen edit from a different continent. Supermos127 edits from a third continent. The only editor who edits from the same country as the master is Turklshdelight. However, they are far apart location-wise and share zero other technical data. I've blocked the two confirmed accounts without tags. Closing with no further action.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/G-Zay/Archive&oldid=1164501052"