Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin


Trampton

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

29 December 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I created this case because one of the socks is SwisterTwister. Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Wow. I did not see that coming. I'm not at all surprised that HYYY was a sock, but I'm stunned and disappointed to find out that SwisterTwister has been pulling the wool over our eyes for nearly a decade. Lepricavark (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was ST ever gaven a chance to explain himself? If not I believe its "consensus" to allow the accused to explain themselves Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 04:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well he still has talk page access.He can explain if he wishes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never believe Hey you, yeah you! (talk · contribs) is a new user, and his comment in many AfDs we both particiapted only reinforced that, but only WP:AGF stops me from looking for any evidence of why I am thinking a such. But behavior of newbie is quite distinguishable. I am highly disappointed it involved yet another long term user though and I still hope some light will come into this. Ammarpad (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvidrim Look at the editor interaction utility - there are at-least 6 deletion discussions where he's double !voted (I think there are more with the third account) and one triple !vote. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC) I see Salvidrim has just struck it - but yeah really really bad. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--Add to that the intentional harrasment of NA1000 which led to the ANI thread that precipitated this SPI.And, as someone who has watched yhe NA1000-ST editorial feud for long enough ftom the sidelines, this is not a good-faith legit use of alts by any margin of discretion.Winged BladesGodric 06:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the topic of legitimate alternative accounts - looking at the Xtools, Trampton only started editing again two months ago, and only has 5 edits overlap (in 2007) with SwisterTwister otherwise - so the socking (totally illegitimate atleast) is a recent thing. (on a even more speculative look, we actually have no way to know confirm if Trampton in 2007 is SwisterTwister)Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Amending that - to confirm, if someone wanted to, could possibly figure out based on editing pattern or something .Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that ST seized control of Trampton recently for fulfillment of his purposes?Winged BladesGodric 07:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though I think that's unlikely (and speculative like I said). Could be ST remembered his previous account. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the userpage said "Although I created this account in July 2008, I've been familiar with Wikipedia since October 2006" which can be a reference to the previously used Trampton account. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Actually there are older accounts which match up with that - Trampton blanked these three user pages User:Dalmation, User:Teddey, User:Jupiter12 saying he owned those accounts. (they haven't edited since 2007) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC) The oldest account being Dalmation. Interestingly, the second account was created just 6 days after the first. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User talk:DGG#SPI - I assume that means SwisterTwister has confirmed to DGG that he socked.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn, that was an unexpected addition to my watchlist. Come on- ST, you at least owe it to all of us to admit on your talk page or something rather than ending it on this note. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--Policies of cases being opened under oldest accounts be damned, I strongly support Salvidrim's proposal and rationale to move this to WP:SPI/ST.Winged BladesGodric 15:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on the basis of oldest account shouldn't this be at Dalmation? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. I will not close the case for a bit in case there are comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: ! GABgab 01:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (not a clerk at the moment)  Comment: Despite the slight difference in account ages (9 years vs 10 years), I'd still definitely fall on the side of considering Swister the master and Trampton the sock -- 2.5k edits vs 187k edits makes it obvious which was the "main account" and it seems a bit silly to consider it any other way (even though in the end it doesn't change that much).
OTOH, I assume from Bbb23's comment that the CU connection is rather firmly established, but even if the accounts are confirmed are the same user, (AGF) there might be a case to be made for a legitimate, undiclosed sock (for privacy reasons or other), and a very quick skim at recent editing doesn't seem to highlight any crossover such as attempts to deceive or both accounts commenting on a single AfD or anything of the sort. Obviously there may have been things I've missed but they might be worth pointing out in this SPI for posterity for the benefit of whoever ends up reviewing a block appeal down the line. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna say that but then I realized there was another sock involved here (HYYY) and stuff like this I think can be seen as "intent to deceive". Also both HYYY and Trampton posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattie B's Hot Chicken at the very least. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note that the deleted userpage from 2007 of Trampton is a clear behavior link to the ST account that includes at least one specific userbox that is the same [1] and identifies the users enough in my mind to be definitive with the CU data. GeneralizationsAreBad, two questions: should the declared alts above be blocked as well (I'm assuming he still has access to those passwords if he had access to the Trampton password). They are stale, but we also know for a fact that they are the same user, so I could go either way. If not, I think it might still be useful to list them in the SPI as well for ease of reference should this SPI become active again, which I unfortunately suspect might be a real possibility. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: @TonyBallioni: The alts - Dalmation (talk · contribs), Teddey (talk · contribs), and Jupiter12 (talk · contribs) - have all been blocked. GABgab 15:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're done here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23 November 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Okay, this really is a long shot, but... there's something wrong with the way Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania Institute of Management and Research was published, many years ago. It was put through AfC, declined a couple of times, and then, without it being resubmitted (that I can see, at least), SwisterTwister went ahead and accepted it. It had been created by a then-new SPA, Ghsimr1995, who has a pretty obvious COI (the username is the initials of the institution and its founding year; I've just now challenged them on this, and they've admitted they work for this organisation), but this was never picked up on, and what's more the draft should IMO never have been accepted because there was/is no evidence of notability. SwisterTwister was later found to be a sock of Trampton, so I'm just wanting to check if they're connected to Ghsimr1995 and waved through their draft because of this. I think it's fair to say this is pretty unlikely, as there seems to be nothing else in common with them, but worth a check? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • SwisterTwister, Trampton et al. have been stale for years, so CU wouldn't be able to provide any useful information. It's fairly clear to me (as it is to you) that Trampton is a different person from the unsophisticated COI editor listed above, and meatpuppetry doesn't seem likely either - ST was an extremely prolific AfC reviewer and evidently wasn't always discerning in what they accepted, so I don't think that they had any particular connection to this article. I'm going to block Ghsmir1995 for their promotional username & edits, but I'm closing this without further action from a SPI perspective. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thanks @Spicy, I think that's entirely reasonable and sensible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trampton/Archive

Leave a Reply