Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epenkimi/Archive

{{sock list|1=Gillispie007|tools_link=yes}}

This newly created account is exhibiting some behaviors that may indicate sockpuppetry or meat puppetry, a concern raised by me and other users ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Turnopoems#Misusing_primary_sources 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gillispie007#Coordination? 2]). Although the account is only a few days old, it demonstrates a surprisingly detailed knowledge of Wikipedia’s processes, including arbitration ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1285124449 1]), RfC participation ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copts&diff=prev&oldid=1284638832 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=1284634434 2]) as well as guidelines in general ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:Skitash&diff=prev&oldid=1283817355 1] - note, same MO as suspected main user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fragrant_Peony&diff=prev&oldid=1285209187 2]), and is also accusing people of edit warring. It seems very unlikely that this is its first or only account. Most of its edits are minor, scattered tweaks on unrelated articles, suggesting an effort to appear active while avoiding genuine content contributions. Most of them are just adding brackets in completely random topics ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nigerian%20Civil%20War&diff=prev&oldid=1285131214 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017%20London%20Bridge%20attack&diff=prev&oldid=1284427255 2]), which to me could also indicate WP:GAMING.

In the main dispute in the Copts article, the account supports a single editor’s arguments without much explanation or involvement otherwise, while also persistently reverting edits in favor of this user's contributions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=prev&oldid=1285119536 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copts&diff=prev&oldid=1285116000 2]). This is all coupled with minimal explanation or conversation on the talk page. The timing also appears strategic: the account was created around roughly the same time as the RfC, and it almost immediately joined in to echo the user’s stance ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copts&diff=prev&oldid=1284638425 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copts&diff=prev&oldid=1285115840 2]).

Beyond the content itself, the account’s pattern of reverting edits aligns closely with that of the user it supports, including matching editing hours. It also seems to mirror the users' interest in anti-pan Arabism identity politics, such as its involvement in the Arab Liberation Flag article, attempting to distance Egypt from it. The main user himself is mostly involved in identity articles such as Coptic identity, Pharaonism, Coptic nationalism and the articles of various Egyptian nationalist figures ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/epenkimi 1]). This could all be coincidental, but there's no harm in investigating these suspicious patterns. Turnopoems (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

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

• {{possilikely}}. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{bnt}} Gillispie007 suspected. Going to warn Epenkimi. Closing. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

----