Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations

SPI Case Reporting

This is regarding a SPI case filed on 10 March 2025 linked to BluntIsBlunt.

• 12 March 2025, Paradoxodarap asked daresh talk page to help him. (Previously they both have good converasations regarding articles).

• On 23 March 2025, User:Paradoxodarap is blocked as sock of BluntIsBlunt by User:Vanamonde93. On 28 March 2025, Daresh went to Vanamonde page and expressed his feelings about G5'ed articles

• On 21 April 2025, User:DareshMohan went to user:Jeraxmoira talk page and asked about Coi & CSD G5 articles which were created by Paradoxodarap. but jerax told daresh "dont indirectly help him in escaping the mess he has created by recreating them back".

• Later on 10 june 2025, daresh started recreating Harshavardhan Rameshwar's g5'ed article which is created by paradoxodarap.

• On 10 September 2025, daresh recreated Kotha Poradu which is previously created by user:Jigijigitaraka. Note - paradoxodarap stated here that Jigijigitaraka is his offline friend.

• 2 December 2025, daresh recreated draft of Rohit–Sasi, Jayanthkumar123 moved it to mainspace, which is also created by paradoxodarap. Previously user:Jayanthkumar123 is also included in BluntIsBlunt case.

• 10 May 2026, daresh recreated Ritesh Rana which is also created by paradoxodarap.

• Among all these, daresh is trying to get back the COI G5'ed articles created by paradoxodarap which were 4 already on live, which is not coincidence. They both might have off wiki relation. Additional daresh goes to some user talk pages and asks helps to edit/create the articles.

~2026-28424-05 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering, @Vanamonde93, @Izno, @PhilKnight, @Ponyo. ~2026-28424-05 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If you would like to open an investigation, please start an SPI report. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering,

As said by you i have filed an investigation here, Please check and lemme know if i filed correct or not.

Thankyou ~2026-28424-05 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, looks fine. -- asilvering (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering, Is there anything steps should i complete to the report? ~2026-28424-05 (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Nope. You're now just waiting for a clerk/admin to pick up the case. -- asilvering (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering Oh okay Got it, I thought you're checking the case and Analyzing the things. ~2026-28424-05 (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible conflict of guidelines

i) On this (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations) page under "How to open an investigation" is stated:

"You do not need to notify the accused editors that you have opened an investigation on them, and in most cases should not. An administrator or clerk can handle this if necessary.".

ii) On the page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases) is similarly, but more strictly, stated:

"Please do not notify the suspected accounts. This tends to result in lengthy arguments on SPI pages, which will delay the resolution of the case. A clerk, admin, or checkuser can always ask the suspected accounts for their input if needed.".

iii) But, on the page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance), that have a direct link to it from the actual Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{username} investigation cases at its section "Comments by other users" as (See Defending yourself against claims.), under "How to open an investigation" contrary to cases above is stated:

"Consider notifying all the users you are accusing using the template {{subst:uw-socksuspect|Case name}}. " ,

that is more likely to be read as an invitation to do so, while other two pages instead have a more or less direct recommendation to do not.

Probably at least one page contain some outdated information (likely the third one, as it also contain a link to main SPI page, that generate an error caused by a change of the target page). ~2026-28690-14 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll fix that last page. -- asilvering (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Duplicate categories?

Is there a difference between Category:SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser and Category:SPI cases waiting for a CheckUser, or are they duplicates of each other? Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@AmandaNP, you created the "duplicate" one, so I expect you have an answer here? -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Appeal Process / Second Opinion?

Does a procedure exist to request a second opinion on closed investigations?

I have recently had an investigation against a user that has been operating three different accounts in a long-running edit war closed without action.

I myself personally do not agree with the clerks findings in this instance and think the findings are rather strange.

I was wondering if a procedure exists to have a second set of eyes review the investigation just to double check things over? Pax Brittanica (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pax Brittanica: while waiting for someone to roll around who actually knows this stuff, I've had a quick look and don't quite see where the problem is? There are multiple accounts, which may or may not be operated by the same individual, or possibly a group of IRL acquaintances, but where specifically are you seeing abuse of multiple accounts? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

All investigations are reviewed by an SPI clerk prior to archiving. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pax Brittanica: CoconutOctopus was correct to close this case in the way that they did. The evidence you present is not particularly compelling, and even if it was, there is not really a sanctionable case here. Let me expand on that latter point: DelightfullyOpposite hasn't edited in a year. There is a time gap between the TA and Archive of Crows. Even if they were all the same, it is – as CO correctly noted – [...] entirely possible they created one account, lost access, edited as a TA, then made a new account. That would not be good insofar as people are expected to disclose connections if they return to the same page with a new account, but it is also not the sort of clearly bad-faith conduct that we would go around blocking new users for. What we might do instead if such a situation was convincingly demonstrated would be to write a friendly message to the accounts in question, inquire about the connection, ask them to disclose if one does exist, and – regardless of the outcome of that conversation – probably let it go unless it happens again. That doesn't require administrative tools, and I strongly recommend you go that route the next time you encounter a situation like this. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: May I inquire as to what was wrong with my previous edit, so I can revise it to something Wikipedia-compliant? Pax Brittanica (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:OUTING. This includes personal profiles on other sites. If it hasn't been revealed by the person in question on-wiki, please don't share it. If you cannot report sockpuppetry without it, please email WP:CHECK instead of describing it here. But I can also save you some time: what you're complaining about is still, in essence, a content dispute, and we wouldn't block for that alone. That is, there is no abuse. The way for you to prevent this from happening is to have a consensus discussion about whether that website should be linked on the page or not. If consensus is against, and editors keep trying to include it anyway, we can block them for doing so, whether or not they're all the same person. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on this. I shall bear this information in mind. Pax Brittanica (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Education financing in <CountryName>

Not quite ready to open an SPI, because I can't decide if a recent flurry of articles or drafts named, 'Education financing in <CountryName>' are due to alternate accounts, or just several users honing in on the same topic for some reason. Maybe it's a popular topic, like the HDI articles about different countries, and it's legit? Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Looked at a few; the way these are written makes me think this is most likely some sort of undeclared class project. Might be worth reaching out to the editors in question and asking. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thinking about approaches. Was running around looking for examples of it and realized the {{World topic}} navbox template is a convenient way to keep track of these:

Moved to WP:ENB § Education financing in <CountryName>

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)