User talk:Blablubbs

Hello

I just wanted to show you that I've learned how to cite books! See "Origins" at Fangoria! The Horror, The Horror (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@The Horror, The Horror: Nice work! Citation templates can be tricky (I still regularly have to look up parameters), but it becomes easier after some time. :) Blablubbs (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

And I've also just learned how to do "thanks" to other editors from the "History" page! The Horror, The Horror (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

UAK

Hi RoySmith and Blablubbs. Archiving of UAK went wrong due to renaming the archive. I'm not sure how to fix it, perhaps you could look into it? (Posting on both of your user talk pages.) Trijnstel_talk 13:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

PS. I already did this, but we should make sure this won't happen again. We should probably change the archive link on this page, but not sure how to do it. Trijnstel_talk 13:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Trijnstel, can you clarify what went wrong? The archive was split because of excessive page size, but that's intended, and new archived cases should go where they went. Blablubbs (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted – the original archive (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/UnderArmourKid/Archive/1) is still linked to from the main casepage, but new cases should indeed continue to be archived to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/UnderArmourKid/Archive. Best, Blablubbs (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw the archive was split, and that's okay. But on the regular archive page a redirect was placed to the Archive/1 page. New requests were moved to the Archive page, but as that was a redirect to Archive/1 we don't see them. Do you understand my point? Trijnstel_talk 13:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Trijnstel, missed that somehow, sorry; that's bad indeed. I removed the redirect and reinstated the split. CC @GeneralNotability, this looks like it may be a script error? Blablubbs (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't get it. It's fine to have two pages. But please remove the redirect then (on the top of the page). Trijnstel_talk 13:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, that's what I meant. :-) We only need a link to the Archive/1 page then. Maybe also on top of the page? Trijnstel_talk 13:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Trijnstel yep, done. :) Thanks for bringing this up, I wonder what went wrong here, GN might have some useful input. Blablubbs (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hi Blablubbs, As you are the page mover . I request to move this article List of districts of Nepal to List of districts in Nepal.Which you can see detail information of talk page of that article.(Fade258 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC))

Hi Fade258. Sorry, but I can't do that; partly because the move is contested – Old Naval Rooftops seems to disagree with it – so consensus will have to be found before anything is done, and partly because that's not really an area I'm comfortable with. I'm not active at RM, and my use of pagemover is limited to SPI-related tasks, such as moving sock categories. Best, Blablubbs (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/69.158.90.121

I think you misread one of the two IPs (69.158.90.121 and 69.156.107.94) as the /16 range you mentioned is not possible. I don't normally favor editing archives, but I would delete your comment in this instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23 oh snap, my bad – thanks for catching it. I've removed the comment. -- Blablubbs (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for filling in some key details I left out on my SPI report. Keep up the great work! Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Yeeno, it's much appreciated. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Editingwiki777

Given User talk:Doug Weller#I amediting wiki and the post above, I'd think the blocks could be changed now to reflect probable socking. What say you? Doug Weller talk 14:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Looking at both accounts more closely, I'm inclined to believe that Raxythecat (talk · contribs) is somebody's sock, but it feels like a joe-job to me, especially given the unrelated CU result. Editingwiki777 (talk · contribs) seems to have mostly focused on edit-warring over OR, while Raxythecat is basically a trolling-only account (that, unlike the master, uses edit summaries). They might still be the same person, but the somewhat dodgy-self admission isn't quite enough to overcome the CU result and behavioural differences in my view, so I would personally lean towards leaving the blocks as they are because I wouldn't be comfortable forcing Editingwiki to defend themselves against a socking allegation in a potential unblock request. Courtesy ping @Skyerise. Best, Blablubbs (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Noted. I don't really disagree, but I doubt Editingwiki777 is likely to come back via an unblocking request! Courtesy ping @Doug Weller. Skyerise (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd forgotten about the lack of edit summaries for one account, although I noticed it at the time. Hadn't thought of a joe-job. I'm happy with the status quo now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Another spi.helper question

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Myers Court, as an example, but this has happened before. I blocked the puppet without tags, but it asks me for the name of the master. Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23, I presume that the dialogue box is coded in a way that it just sequentially sends you through the boxes and discards unneeded data – I don't think it does anything for blocks without tags. Blablubbs (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't do any harm, but it shouldn't ask. It knows not to ask when you do tag and you've identified the master, whereas if you tag a sock and don't identify the master (because it's already tagged), it asks. So it actually doesn't do everything by rote but has a fair amount of intelligence.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. Pingpong @GeneralNotability: In case this is an easy fix. Blablubbs (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The master is used in {{uw-sockblock}}'s master= parameter (so that it says "as a sockpuppet of so-and-so"). I've never loved the logic in this part of the script, to be honest (and spent months fixing minor bugs in it causing weird sock tagging issues). Brief review of the logic involved here: the prompt will fill in the name of the case, unless someone has a sockmaster/cu-confirmed master tag, in which case it will fill in their username instead. The question is basically "should we support tagging where the sockmaster doesn't match the current case name" (I say yes, for dealing with cases where CU finds multiple independent groups but we don't feel like filing a proforma case) and "how do we present these choices to the user in the least surprising way?". GeneralNotability (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Need I say what this is for? Ah! Okay, for your tireless efforts at SPI. Celestina007 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Celestina007: Thank you, it's much appreciated. And thanks for all your work around here. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Oldest account

Hi, Re. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vikhyat Dubey Virat Brothers/Archive, User:Vikhyat Dubey is certainly the oldest account and thus the master. It would be consistent to move the SPI to master, will you agree? Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri you're certainly correct, that must have slipped my mind somehow. I'll move and retag. Thanks. Blablubbs (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a lovely weekend, by the way. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri now  Done – sorry again. And to you as well. :) Blablubbs (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

An idea

Hi Blablubbs, but also @Possibly and TSventon:.

Yeasterday, Bédévore (who works on fr-wp, like me, on SPI and, moreover, promotion/COI/UPE) and I had an idea, following en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MARdF (thanks for the ping, btw). When we discover, on a specific wiki, abuses like promotion/UPE/COI that are cross-wiki, it's not always easy to know how to alert other wikis. Here, you pinged me because we already cooperated in the past, but for example, TSventon asked if we did know trusted users on es, hu and pt... and as for me, no.

So here is the idea: create a hub (a page, in fact) on metawiki with volunteer referents/contacts for as many wikis as possible, and a talk page for coordination on big cross-wiki cases. The volunteer referents/contacts would be wikipedians used to SPI, fighting promotion and UPE; if they have a role (sysop, CU, this could be indicated, along with the languages spoken). For example, in our case, we could have reached contacts/referents listed on this page and/or use the talk page as a way to coordinate.

To create such a hub would request, obviously, to look for other people invested in fighting UPE, promotion, etc., and to make some publicity for this new hub on other wikis. This would be an occasion to create a bit of an international coordination against UPE and more broadly uses of Wikipedia for promotion. On fr-wp, we have a fr:Projet:Antipub, but not that much contacts with collegues from other wikis.

What do you think about it?

Best regards, Jules* (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I do not have much to contribute to this discussion other than to say that it also occurred to me that a contact page for "admins on other wikis willing to help", or something like that, would be really useful. It was great to have Jules' help on the Prix Versaille accounts; je vous remercie! --- Possibly ☎ 14:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This is absolutely required. I haven't seen much cross-wiki spam lately, but that's probably because they post to en.wp first. There are a couple of tells that are specific to cross-wiki spam.

That reminds me, I should finish my cross-wiki history tool. MER-C 14:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This sounds very interesting – would it be an actual process to deal with crosswiki UPE (i.e. like we have SPI for socking) or just a contact list of administrators/functionaries willing to help out? Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Giraffer: it could be both, it remains to be decided. I thought that the talk page of this meta page could be a place for coordination, in an informal way (ex: I'm from x wiki, I ping contact user of y wiki to inform them about a cross-wiki abuse), but we could also use a more formalized process (like SPI here) for bigger cases, with one subpage by case. Best, — Jules* ^Talk 18:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Jules*, thanks for your response. This all sounds like a great idea. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree good idea. TSventon (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, really delighted to see such enthusiastic comments! :) Cross-wiki spam and vanity pages are a real liability. As of now, Jules and I are thinking about "who could be available?" and "how to do this?". Please feel free to contact me about cross-wiki spam and vanity page creations, I definitely love cleaning it up. Best, - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 17:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jules*, Bédévore, Giraffer, and TSventon: Sorry, I know I promised an earlier reply, but Moderna had me more or less knocked out for a bit. I agree that more cross-wiki coordination would definitely provide a huge benefit. In past cases, I've usually either relied on existing contacts, or taken a similar approach to TSventon, which is that I notified affected wikis on admin noticeboards or at their embassies, generally with good results. Compiling a list of users who are willing to help with detection and cleanup in cross-wiki UPE matters sounds like a great first step. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

+1. Just a list of users on different wikis willing to help would go a long way. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 11:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Giraffer, TSventon, Blablubbs, and MER-C:. Before reaching out other wikis, we are going to create a draft of this coordination page on Metawiki. Do you have an idea for the name/title in English (it will be translated in other languages, obviously)? "Anti-advertising coordination"? "Cross-wiki anti-advertising group"? My English level is basic, so you may find something better . (I would like to avoid names with "ambassadors", as this page may be used to coordinate investigations too, beyond the list of users willing to help.) — Jules* ^Talk 15:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jules*: Maybe just something simple like "Wikiproject antispam" or similar? --Blablubbs (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Spam (it could also handle external links). MER-C 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Prix Versailles next steps

Thank you for your help with this. Now all the users have been blocked, what action is needed on removing non notable content in other Wikipedias? Will SPI checkers already be on the case? Or could that wait until your idea takes shape. TSventon (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey @TSventon and @Jules*, sorry for my brevity – noting that I've seen this and the above and will post thoughts tomorrow once I've read up on everything and have some more time. The SPI team generally doesn't have any responsibilities outside of processing the cases, though I'm personally happy to help cleanup. Best, Blablubbs (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @TSventon and Blablubbs. I guess we should warn other wikipedias (with a message on their admin noticeboard?), so they can handle it on their side. — Jules* ^Talk 16:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jules* and Blablubbs. I was think of messages on admin noticeboards too (the 16 languages of Prix Versailles plus Wikidata and Commons). They should probably mention Purple economy, Cultural footprint and International Appeal of 7 June 2020. Would it be best if the message came from an admin like Jules*? Do the fr and en admin notice boards need to receive the same message? TSventon (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon It doesn't have to be me (but I'm OK too to do it). No need for fr-wp, I already did it. Best, — Jules* ^Talk 17:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jules* I will post a similar message to admin notice boards (English and machine translation). It may take a couple of days. If Fr Prix Versailles is deleted, will fr Wikipedia remove other mentions of the prize? Wikipedias without COI editors like cs and nl don't seem to mention it. TSventon (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Some notice boards are semi-protected so I can't post there. My first two posts have been to de and es vandalism boards. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon: for fr-wp, probably, yes. Thank you for the posts! Lets us know which wikis you could not inform so we can handle it another way. Best, — Jules* ^Talk 10:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Blablubbs and Jules*. Probably an English language noticeboard for a Wikipedia like Chinese will work better than a machine translation. TSventon (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon, you could try contacting one of the English-language ambassadors listed at zh:维基百科:大使館. Embassies worked well for me on dawiki and nowiki in a minor xwiki case I was involved in some time ago. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello Blablubbs, for us non technical editors, reading some technical related polices and guidelines still go over our heads. I have read WP:Committed identity/Commitment scheme but still cannot understand it, can you give me a detailed explanation(if you can’t due to time ) can you in summary tell me what it’s about? Celestina007 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Celestina007! I'm happy to try to explain. At the core of committed identities are cryptographic hash functions. Those are functions that convert any given string into a different string of seemingly random letters and numbers that always has the same length, no matter how long the input is. For example: If you use the SHA-512 hashing algorithm on the string test, you get ee26b0dd4af7e749aa1a8ee3c10ae9923f618980772e473f8819a5d4940e0db27ac185f8a0e1d5f84f88bc887fd67b143732c304cc5fa9ad8e6f57f50028a8ff. If you use the same algorithm on testtest, you get 125d6d03b32c84d492747f79cf0bf6e179d287f341384eb5d6d3197525ad6be8e6df0116032935698f99a09e265073d1d6c32c274591bf1d0a20ad67cba921bc etc. Really minor changes in the input string will produce massive differences in the output hash.

It's not important how they work exactly on a mathematical level (I don't understand that either), but a good hash function has two properties that are of interest to us: First, that it's deterministic, which means that if you run the same algorithm on the same string, you always get the same result, and second that it's irreversible, meaning that it's extremely hard (basically impossible) to get the original string by looking at its hashed value. This means, for example, that while putting test into SHA-512sum will always give you ee26b0dd4af7e..., you can't use ee26b0dd4af7e... to deduce what was originally encoded.

One common use of these functions is to store passwords. Any website operator worth their money won't be storing passwords in plain text, they will be storing the hashes of these passwords. The database won't know that your password is test, it will only know that your password's hash is ee26b0dd4af7e.... If the database gets stolen, the security impact is mitigated because nobody actually knows your password, they only know its irreversible hash, which is pretty useless on its own if you use a strong and unique password (and not something like "test", which is extremely easy to guess).

For committed identity schemes, we essentially do the same thing. In cases of account compromise, one crucial step is to be able to verify whether or not one is speaking to the original account holder. Say I hash the string Name: Bla Blubber, Tel: +49 123 438 23 43, 23 Example Lane, Somevillage, Examplistan, I get the hash 51e5a09f00428659030ef9d9cd3a7b54cbd10ef411aeea1450cd43f759e7721261e6dc4a43391ba2968872bab747bbb618a63205ed12b9f12006cb763c5d8696 and can put that on my userpage. I don't tell anyone what my secret string is, but I do make a note of it somewhere. If my account gets compromised and I go knocking at WMF T&S, they will probably ask how they can be sure that they are actually speaking to Blablubbs and not an imposter. I can then provide them the input string Name: Bla Blubber, Tel: +49 123 438 23 43, 23 Example Lane, Somevillage, Examplistan and they can hash it for themselves, thereby proving that my identity is clearly linked with the committed identity on my userpage, and take it from there – they could even call me to make sure that the person contacting them is actually the person operating that phone number. However, nobody will be able to tell what my name, phone number and address is just from looking at my userpage because the hashing process is irreversible (assuming you use a good algorithm).

Does that make sense? --Blablubbs (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

lol Huhhh????? Okay now you are just showing off 😒 it’s like I told EEng & Guy Macon you guys are gifted from birth, my view on technical editors is either you are born with the amazing gift or you aren’t, oh well I guess I wasn’t, I have already enabled 2FA, and have an email linked to my account so I think that should suffice. why don’t I just stick to what I was born with, which is detecting UPE no matter how well the WP:ADMASQ is written I just know it when I see it oh well let’s stick to our innate gifts. Like I said before templating editing or anything technical related like (coding) is a gift and I assure as hell wasn't present when God was giving out that gift. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, 007. Long story short, what you're already doing is fine. EEng 23:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If that was the underlying question, then yep, that's the answer. ;) --Blablubbs (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

EEng, lol thanks guys. Celestina007 (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

more socks, and more sock..

Hi,

You might recall I contacted you some time back, thanking you for your excellent work on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VentureKit.

Well, this is a never-ending job; I watch some of the articles on leaders of Gulf area; the problem is that they use millions of dollars (literally!) on so-called "reputation management". Lots of these leaders (who are virtually all deeply undemocratic, with absolutely dismal human rights records) tend to end up haveing very pretty biographies on wp.

I noticed the VentureKit-socks on Yousef Al Otaiba; I didn't keep my eye on it for about a year, and all what the socks tried to remove (with no support from WP:BLP-board) magically disappeared.

Ah well; I am not a very good sock-hunter, but someone should look into it?

This is a Sisyphean work, I'm afraid,

Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Huldra! Yep, good catch. BEANS limits me in what I can say here, but there's an account there that has been on my radar for a while. I don't think it's VentureKit – at least I can't conclusively tie it to them or to anyone else, and there's not much to go on. I can email you details if you're interested.

A Sisyphean task indeed; I prefer to think of it as Whac-A-Mole though; that sounds a little more fun, and given that the sheer amount of socking linked to state-level actors in that topic area is one of the darkest things I've learnt about Wikipedia in my time here, I can use any positive re-framing I can get. Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you recognize?

This account? It is obviously not a new user. They copied this user page at some point, but I think they just used it as template, though the description on their user page do not jive with their contributions (ignoring their user pages and multiple Wiki project registrations, is rapid fire reverts of anonymous IP editors only).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Eostrix: I see what you mean, the userpage gaming is particularly concerning to me. I can't give you a specific name though, there are a number of people this reminds me of. I'll have a look and maybe ask some people who have better memories than I do. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I am fairly certain it someone, but I've drawn a blank on the few comparisons I've made. I think the user page copying and wiki projects is just smoke (copied at random), which leaves us with user page/project emulation and rapid fire reverts of IPs at the moment.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Eostrix, keep in mind that all of those are fairly generic and shared between lots of sockmasters and some good faith users – for rapid reverts of anons, this lot comes to mind. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess there's our answer. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I knew your talk page would unleash the jackpot. :-).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the credit, but I have no idea whether NRP came across them here or elsewhere. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Bruh, socks are a thing? Find those stinky socks and sock them! I swear to thee I shall never be a sock around these here parts. Gyofh (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Question (II)

Hi Blablubbs - hope you are well. Thank you for your excellent work with this SPI case. If you don't mind, I have a technical question for you! As you know the editor jumps from IP range to IP range, going back-and-fourth from the 103.74.xxx.xxx range to the 117.228.xxx.xxx range. Is this a choice by the editor, or is the IP address decided by the host ISP at the point the user logs on? More for my own curiosity than anything else. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts! IP assignment is mostly in the hands of the ISP, though there are limited exceptions (beans!). In this case though, we are dealing with two different ISPs that own different ranges, so the editor switches IPs once they go from one network to another. The Cloud Shield one discussed in the SPI is presumably their residential or business ISP, while the other, BSNL, provides their mobile internet (see here: BSNL-GSM-westZone; GSM stands for "Global System for Mobile Communications"). Fortunately, both ISPs appear to have sensible assignment patterns (i.e. users stay on a single, relatively narrow range for extended periods of time), which isn't a given considering the country. I hope this helps, please let me know if you have any other questions. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! That's an excellent reply - pretty much confirmed my thinking. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting Suspicion

Hello Blablubbs,

I hope you are well.

There is this user named "Accidental-usurpation" that I am almost certain is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user named "BaxçeyêReş". The account was created a day after BaxçeyêReş was banned, and the types of edits "Accidental-usurpation" makes are extremely similar to the ones BaxçeyêReş made, like removing Azerbaijani names/translations from the article introductions, changing the language in the templates, and etc.

The kind of language "Accidental-usurpation" uses also seems extremely similar to that of BaxçeyêReş. I mean maybe you yourself would notice, both use archaic, kind of "exaggerated", overly formal language, such as "Thank you so much for your swift and lucid response" here, you can check other examples from BaxçeyêReş's account where he writes, the style seems very very similar, if not identical.

Both users also claim to be "neutral" like on BaxçeyêReş's main page, "Both Azerbaijan and Armenia" kind of deal, but then similarly to the blocked account, the new account only edits on Azerbaijan-related pages.

Also, the new account very quickly went on the talk-page of the banning administrator and started naming all these experienced users that stick to Armenia/Azerbaijan pages i.e "WimpyDood, BaxceyeRes, Parishan, NMW03, Brandmeister, Grandmaster, KhndzorUtogh", which is unusual for a new user to know the editors. The user also started indirectly defending BaxçeyêReş with what-aboutism, "Azerbaijani users do it, it's not fair!" sort of thing here

I have several other concerns I could write about, but basically it's a long list of similarities that I simply don't believe are coincidences. You yourself I think got slighly suspicious here, similarly to this user here who created an account immideatly after BaxçeyêReş was banned and started a sockpuppet investigation into me here. Also both "Accidental-usurpation" and "PuhPaayYuh" both claim to have been IP spectators. Now I don't know how many "ip spectators" there are on Wikipedia that never edit but simply observe the editing environment, but I imagine not many.

I want to file for Sockpuppet Investigation basically. Just wanted to ask your personal thoughts on this as a person who deal with this kind of stuff?

Thank you in advance for your response, - WimpyDood (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi WimpyDood. I was more than a little suspicious, but also fairly sick and not in any state to file a coherent SPI – I'm fairly confident of the PuhPaayYuh<->Accidental-usurpation link and haven't looked into the BaxçeyêReş enough to have a definitive opinion there. I recommend filing an SPI if you are reasonably certain, somebody will have a look. As a general tip, brief, diff-heavy reports in bulleted list format (e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Constituto/Archive) will generally be easiest to parse and act on. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you very much for the advice, I will file SPI as you suggested. Also wish you health if you are still sick, take care. - WimpyDood (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

WPWP, deleted SPI

How is anyone to know what's going on with an unblock request when the only record of what's going on is in a deleted SPI? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

are you referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aminwa 21? --Blablubbs (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I expect so. Good job closing these (but maybe don't advise deletion just yet?). Jpgordon, be sure to catch a read of WP:AN##WPWP_#WPWPARK. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Well yeah, the only reason I know about it is because of an unblock request which pointed to that SPI. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

They were not blocked as part of that SPI. FWIW, recommend unblock on all of them (looks like CU picked up an editathon). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)