Contents

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leed110: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:36, 24 May 2024

Leed110 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leed110/Archive.

23 May 2024

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerkorcheckuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Goldenarrow9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

This one is a bit tricky. A new account displaying good proficiency in Wiki editing right from first edit. Only a minimal overlap with master – I've found only an immediately self-reverted edit at Camel urine but there may be more (like, monitoring/editing Somalia-related articles, e.g. Ajuran SultanateorSa'ad Musa[1]). Editing pattern (topic choice) resembles those of A guy who edits things and DrinkingOuttaDrinks, but a different master entirely possible (Bennyblanco10, overlapping at Ajuran Sultanate, too, and aligning with the block date & time of its last sock Ynilsa?). Checkuser requested. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UtoD It might be, although my working hypothesis for Dowrylauds and a few others there is meatpuppetry / off-wiki coordination. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

The said page has seen a large number of socks many has been blocked for now. Dowrylauds which was inactive since 2017 and suddenly became involved in the page is also suspicious but could be a different master. -UtoD 21:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not notified of this report (I found out via User:Kashmiri's edit history). I have already emailed checkusers at checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org about the only other account I have had. Also note about my complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal Attack by User:Kashmiri against User:Kashmiri. I don't see the point of discussing this all over Wikipedia when I have already started a discussion at a noticeboard and even disclosed my prior history (without identifying information). I don't have any connection to Lead110 or any other accounts mentioned here. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Users are not required to notify users of sockpuppet investigations. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright. No issues with that. A courtesy notice would have been nice given we were discussing the exact same thing at ANI (and he had directly asked me about my previous accounts even earlier). I would also request to move this discussion to the ANI thread since it's all related. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe they are associated with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Advocata rather than Leed110 based on their only AfD vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. N. Srinivasa Rao, which they came across "on some Wikiproject dashboard/list." This appears to be a case of WP:OBSART at most. If the disclosed account emailed to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org is User:Renamed user ExPsittacine, then it's block evasion and not clean start. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My previous disclosed account is not that. My previous account was in good standing and had no blocks or actions against it. Further, I have asked in my last email for them to comment on this post to clear it up. Hopefully, they do that soon. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the meanwhile, I would really appreciate if you avoid trying to find my real-life identity (WP:OUTING) like kashmiri attempted to do over at ANI. I value my privacy immensely and have not even actively participated in any contentious discussions (apart from a single comment on a Request for move). Goldenarrow9 (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My comment isn't anywhere close to discovering your real-life identity unless your name is 'Renamed user ExPsittacine'. If you are going to engage in areas where there were sockpuppets before, then obviously your actions will be scrutinized. Dropping your 2 cents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. N. Srinivasa Rao when you have around 200 edits with no previous AfD votes only increases the suspicion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  does that indicate only experienced editors are allowed to participate in AFDs now? Can you point me to the guideline that says so? Also, my vote was only considering Wikipedia policy. I didn't even comment about the content. This is just you gatekeeping. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Did I, in any way, ask you not to comment on AfDs? No. I said your actions will be scrutinized. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  UnlikelytoDrinkingOuttaDrinks (talk · contribs) or Hölderlin2019 (talk · contribs), who are the only two accounts I saw behavioural similarities to. The claim of an older account in good standing is believable (ticket:2024052310010301) and vague notions of off-wiki coordination or likely incidental overlap is not enough to run more checks, as  CheckUser is not for fishing.  Closing without action DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]