Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ÆCE/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

ST47 (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

may possibly be related? I just noticed this SPI and it reminded me of automatic thank edits to get autoconfirmed, as well as in relation to Indian topics. There also was a recent ANI report about it. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 06:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The primary area of focus for this farm seems to be Sushant Singh Rajput and related articles specifically. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 13:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And by the by, got another possible one for you: . Seems to be fixated on one of the articles in the disputed area above. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 13:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixating on a specific article: Not grounds for ban. Sanjiv74 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Being an SPA who appears to have been created only to get involved in a controversial article/topic area known to have been targeted by a sockpuppeteer and pick fights in a manner not dissimilar from the sockpuppeteer in question is evidence enough for a CU. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 13:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity (I presume the answer is either "no" or "can't comment") but is there any indication ÆCE is operating off a shared terminal? —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 19:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding. Refusing to look at sources, trying to make strawmen, etc. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 11:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking I'm starting to see a behavioural pattern overall. While they may be arguing different sides per sock, the MO is the same - to disrupt any conversation about SSR's death by essentially derailing them with strawmen and personal attacks, ignoring any proffered sources and policy-based arguments that firmly contradict their position. In essence, looking to fight, not to actually resolve issues. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 11:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Samuel991, Botpy, and Acro94-00 are ✅ to each other. The remaining accounts are all . . ST47 (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey there, thank you for opening this and for CUing it as well. I'm very concerned that it may be difficult to establish strong behavioural notes on this user. I looked through edits by ÆCE and some of the others, and there are a lot of dissimilarities, which suggests that they're deliberately trying to hide who they are and/or there is more than one person doing this. Their talk page comments are formatted differently, their editing behaviour is different. Take Samuel who establishes a shouty user page, unlike any of the others. And based on Draft:Dr. Joe Dispenza, an article about some random chiropractor/neuroscientist from California, they appear to be a UPE. Botpy cranks out welcome notices, with no other substantive contributions. Acro94-00 slings personal attacks and has an emotionally charged agenda related to Sushant Singh Rajput and Rhea Chakraborty. And while I know that the other accounts are likely, ÆCE's talk page style, with the obnoxious over-quoting and poor formatting is dissimilar to Acro. My point is: duck blocks could be difficult to pull off, so is there any way to get semi-regular CUs to see what new accounts could have sprung up? The Sushant Singh Rajput death has driven a lot of SPAs and now sock operators out of the woodwork. These users are trying to push a conspiracy theory that the guy was murdered, so any extra eyes to weed out the obvious socks would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Sanjiv74 is a duck - Please indef. (I am involved.) Totally transparent nonsense. The first few words of this, "Conduct issues in most cases are linked to content issues and tend to go away if the content issue is resolved" was copied from this note left by Robert McClenon, comments made about ÆCE, which a new user would not know about. And Meg4499, like Sanjiv74 is doing, created an account to defend the "poor guy" who was blocked for violating our sockpuppetry policy. And thanks to this editor, where we once had a bunch of fanboys/fangirls showing up here and there to advocate for Rajput, we now have a person or people using deliberately deceptive and unethical means to forward their agenda. It would be nice to get other admins to watchlist these articles and talk pages. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * is ✅, . ST47 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * is ❌. ST47 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, I will make a note to follow up., if you persist in making more accounts, we will simply block your IP range. If you are able to explain what you are doing, and what the story is with all of these accounts, then read WP:GAB and appeal the block on your talk page. ST47 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * is ✅, . ST47 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * what about ? In this edit, (which might have been placed in the wrong section on purpose to make us think they're a newbie), they're recommending that the article be deleted, which is part of what ÆCE did at the DRN they opened. Also, from a behavioural perspective, Pyropic was asking that we remove content related to Rajput's death, where ÆCE was pushing an agenda to implicate Chakraborty in Rajput's death. So now they're playing both sides of the fence, which now seems like it's just for lulz. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also requesting check on yet another new account du jour who appears to be quoting other content and parroting what other editors have said, whether those comments have merit or not. Per this edit I guess Wikipedia isn't allowed to cite anybody who has an opinion... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on their edits to Talk:Rhea Chakraborty, i.e. the style of writing, I'm reasonably sure A2c1 and Happybunny0000111 are the same person, but not sure enough to block them without CU backup. JerryM28 I suspect is unrelated.  But, none of them has edited in several weeks, so I don't see any urgency in figuring this out.  If they come back to life, we can take another look.  Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)