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

• Danjensen137 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Theresethomas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jackhughes26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nickb410 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2001:8003:D847:2900:CCC6:2D8B:73E8:5221 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

These five SPA have contributions focussed on creating a BLP for David Donovan the owner of a political opinion blog Independent Australia removed and repeatedly declined re-creation on grounds of non-notability. Seems like they got lucky at last. The pattern of behaviour suggests a single person acting with a COI to use Wikipedia to legitimise and advertise themselves and their blog. Not the tag-team edit-warring:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Donovan&type=revision&diff=1047110742&oldid=1047091739
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Donovan&diff=next&oldid=1047160915
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Donovan&diff=next&oldid=1047256995
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Donovan&diff=next&oldid=1047277850
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Donovan&diff=next&oldid=1047284199
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Donovan&diff=next&oldid=1047284800

Some discussion here and here. --Pete (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

•  Clerk endorsed - Certainly something fishy going on here, especially with the bogus AfC review. CU should be helpful to investigate the relationships between these accounts. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No comment on the IP. Jackhughes26 and Nickb410 are  Confirmed to each other. MickeyViolet and Theresethomas are probably not the same as the previous pair, and probably not each other. Danjensen137 appears (technically) unrelated to everyone. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like we are dealing with a mixture of socks and meat. Nickb410 and Jackhughes26 socked to subvert the AfC process, which is a pretty blatant policy violation. Although Danjensen137 and MickeyViolet aren't technically related, it's clear to me that they are coordinating with each other and the other accounts based on the single topic focus, shared line of arguments and tag-teaming (e.g. [1][2], [3][4][5][6]). There's also an obvious undisclosed COI at play here, and I think the time for AGF is over.  Awaiting administrative action - please indef Nickb410, Danjensen137 and MickeyViolet for sock- and/or meatpuppetry. Theresehughes and the IP have only made one edit each, so without a clear technical connection I don't think it's worth taking any action with them right now. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spicy Theresehughes? Is that a cross between Theresethomas and Jackhughes26? Also, it sounds like Jackhughes26 and Nickb410 should be broken out into their own case, no? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @RoySmith: I'm not sure how effective a split would be here; these accounts are not really behaviourally distinguishable from each other in a meaningful sense, so it would probably be 50/50 whether people file under the correct master. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  RoySmith Facepalm oops, thanks for catching that - I meant Theresethomas. I'm inclined to agree with Blablubbs re. splitting the case - since there seems to be a few different people working together here, it makes more sense to me to keep the SPI in one place so that future suspected socks can be compared against all of the accounts instead of a subset of them. Spicy (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Works for me, moving back to closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Blocked but awaiting tags. Back to you, Spicy. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I tagged Nickb410 and Jackhughes26 as confirmed. No tags for the others. Closing case. Spicy (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  On hold - while we sort out the tagging, etc -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  PS, no longer on hold :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Nickb410 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ( Clerk note: originally filed under this user)
• Simba1409 (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 • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MickeyViolet: an account ten years inactive suddenly wakes to resume the same behaviour as the blocked account. I've made a comment on the talk page there and alerted the clerk on his talk page. Pete (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. The sock puppet claim is nonsense. Check the ip addresses.

I have every right to log back into my Wikipedia account and edit whatever pages I see fit.

As a consumer of independent media, I noticed that Dave Donovan's page was up for speedy deletion, recalling that I have a Wikipedia account, I intervened.

Now that I am back on Wikipedia, I have made edits to other pages and will continue to do so until I grow tired of it. I then might come back in a week, a month, or a year, as is my right to do so.

The issue here is that Pete/Skyring has a clear vendetta against Independent Media.

Instead of engaging in discussion and arguing against the points I have made as to why Dave Donovan is notable, Pete/Skyring is accusing me of being a sockpuppet. It would seem that anyone who disagrees with Pete/Skyring must be a sockpuppet. This is bad faith use of Wikipedia.

Pete/Skyring has not responded to the talk page, where I have tried to initiate a discussion. IF Pete/Skyring truly believes that Dave Donovan is not notable, they should make their case instead of making accusations. --Simba1409 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I'm sensing meat-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for what you 'sense', where's your evidence? Simba1409 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your timing & the bio article you immediately went to. Something is going on, here. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merged section from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nickb410. Going to close this as it's redundant to the open section below. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Simba1409 (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 • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Until today, hadn't edited in 10 years, to dispute the deletion of David Donovan. Also tried to assert that article was not created by a sock. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have provided defence that I am not a sockpuppet here --Simba1409 (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't rule out the possibility that you are a meatpuppet. Yes, you can edit or not as you please at any time, but 10 years is a long time. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wrongful deletion of a page is a good a reason as any to log back into Wikipedia. I'm sure people are browsing Wikipedia and see something they strongly disagree with and log back into their old accounts all the time. Simba1409 (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but 10 years is very unusual. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it and move on.--Simba1409 (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock/Meat puppetry & apparently WP:NOTADVOCATE breaching. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal view, you have no evidence. A different view to you on notability does not = advocacy or meat puppetry. You should refrain from personal attacks, which without evidence, your above remark is. --Simba1409 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator above, I thank 331dot for the help in keeping everything straight. This account - Simba1409 - has two distinct modes of discourse. Ten years ago, before ceasing for a decade, it was a distinctive "sportsfan" mode, a good example here. Now suddenly he sounds quite different. My theory is that after he was blocked for socking, he asked his mailing list if anybody had an old Wikipedia account he could borrow so he could have yet another go at creating his article(s).--Pete (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The account mentioned above (Redacted) has a very sparse history of two edits (neither in mainspace) on Wikipedia. A possible conflict of interest right there. If he was busy creating a page and adding metadata to it etc. then what happened to him after it was created? He makes the thing and doesn't tinker with it? --Pete (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SkyRing should note that the text above when you go to contribute to this discussion says 'Do not make accusations without providing evidence.'

You have no evidence that I am Danjensen, because no evidence exists, because I am not Danjensen.

When I first joined Wikipedia I was a teenager, not many teens have interests in politics and media, so yes, I edited mainly sport articles.

Now that I am an adult, I have an interest in politics and media, as you can see I've made edits to The Age but I still retain interests in sport and thus have made edits to people related to Melbourne Victory.

The accusations made by SkyRing are unfounded and quite frankly, having made the initial accusation and made their case, should now keep their nose of out it or risk looking like having a vested interest in the deletion of Donovan's wiki page. --Simba1409 (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The timing of your return & the article you went to, is so amazing. GoodDay (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How long do I have to wait for this investigation to conclude? It's becoming a joke now. Simba1409 (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that two accounts were banned for sockpuppetry in creating deleted articles and the very next day an account that has been dormant for ten years shows up and begins exactly the same behaviour with exactly the same articles, I'd say Quack. We're not idiots. --Pete (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This actually has nothing to do with you. You are not an admin. Your obsession with trying to get me banned is concerning. Leave me alone. Simba1409 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the SPI can be closed soon & the lad's second unblock request will be reviewed, before it expires Oct 11, 2021. Don't like seeing anybody in limbo. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Checkuser note: I'm hesitant to use the word 'unrelated' except for Danjensen137 from the previous case, who appears to be (technically) unrelated. Having said that, there's no confirmation that Simba1409 is related to the others. To put things another way, I don't rule out the possibility that all accounts apart from Danjensen137 are actually the same person, but the technical evidence doesn't provide confirmation of that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• In terms of alleged sockpuppetry, I'm closing this with no action. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---