Trichome

thcscience_admin


Gaurarjun

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

17 March 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darwinex&diff=prev&oldid=946068837

Account created just as suspected sockpuppeteer got involved in a contentious AfD. Edited that AfD without any introduction as if they were the other user. Used the exact same characteristic edit summary ("Copy Edit.") and the same signature style "--", as well at the emoticon ": )" that populates LSVTArmy's comments. Astrophobe (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I'm not sure what the procedure for this is (sorry if this is the wrong place to note this), but after submitting this, I noticed that the person I logged here as the suspected sockpuppeteer went to the AfD and edited their suspected sockpuppet's signature to remove that account's signature and put in their own. Which is not what you would do if you were trying to make it look like there are more people on your side of the discussion than there actually are, and makes it look much more like it was a genuine mistake to edit the AfD with two different accounts. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I was about to stick up for the editor as someone who just may have just started a new account having forgotten about the other, based on his/her statement here, but that was before seeing the other nine accounts -- all of which seem to be actively editing over the last few months -- listed below. TJRC (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

05 November 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Similar timecards. Significant overlap [1]. The emoticon tell that is mentioned in the archives [2][3][4][5][6][7]. Other similarities [8][9], [10][11][12][13][14], [15][16][17][18]. Requesting checkuser since last time there was a big batch of accounts. MarioGom (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2022 (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]

  •  In progress - Girth Summit (blether) 15:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU doesn't give us much. Lena Virginia Birse is stale. Martina Del Giorno is editing from a single IP, and is the only account on that IP; it's in the same country and using the same ISP as the IPs I see in the CU log for old cases, but it's on a different range. Let me take a look at the editing. Girth Summit (blether) 15:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on their edit summary usage, I think this is most likely the same person. I'm going to leave it up to someone else to whether it's worth blocking them - as far as I can tell, they aren't using multiple accounts any more, and they're not involving themselves in AfDs which seemed to be the problem last time. Girth Summit (blether) 15:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection from me if others consider that a block is not worth it. MarioGom (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My take: I'd be willing to give them a second chance if they were a clear net positive, but after looking at their edit history I'm not sure how much of their editing is actually productive. It's mostly indiscriminate removal of stuff, sometimes with misleading edit summaries [19]. The prior socking history is fairly extensive and includes apparent attempts to impersonate other users (Ipigott and SharabSalam). The incident that led to the original block is also concerning [20]. I think the new account should be blocked, and if they want to return to editing they can make an unblock request that addresses their prior behaviour. I'm not comfortable giving them immunity just because no one happened to notice their socking until now. Spicy (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, based on Spicy's comments, I'm blocking and tagging as suspected. Girth Summit (blether) 14:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09 December 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Comes back to activity a few days after the last blocks. Very similar timecards [21][22][23]. Same type of content deletion. See edit summaries: [24][25], [26][27][28], [29][30][31], [32][33][34]. MarioGom (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2022 (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]

  •  Blocked and tagged. I've left them a note on how to properly appeal an SPI block if they want to, rather than socking with sleepers. Closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gaurarjun/Archive

Leave a Reply