Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Applodion/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I was discussing the same topic with the two users during which they were defending the same point. It came to my attention that when Applodion stopped responding to a lengthy discussion Lightspecs came right after to discuss his points, (he was inactive while I was talking to Applodion). And Applodion became inactive while I started the discussion with Lightspecs. I checked the users contributions and they are active on the same days, just never at the same time. For example when Applodion is on an edit spree Lightspecs is offline, vice versa.

They have pretty similar edits and point of views. If you check their contribution page you'll know what I mean. I asked the user on his User talk:Lightspecs whether he is a sock or not he denied it, and for the first time in all their edit history made edits 1 minute of each other. It also raises question that this happened for the first time after I asked him if he's a sock. A4516416 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
As I stated on 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼's talk page. I stopped responding because I wanted to finish an article I was writing at the moment, namely Andrew Mukooza. I also want to say that I am quite sad be accused of sockpuppetry by A4516416. While the discussion between them, 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼, and me did not exactly went great, I felt that we were reaching a constructive conclusion - only to have finished writing an article and come back to be placed on an investigation. As shown in the Editor Interaction Analyser, 𝓛𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓼 and I have not that much interaction beside editing the Syrian Civil War articles. As seen by the edit history of Eastern Syria insurgency (2017–present), we also disagree: He wanted to remove an attack from the article, as the reference probably based its information off an false video. I reverted his edit, reasoning "better to have this, and state that it is disproven, rather than deleting it outright". Applodion (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The check user request is not a personal attack and you shouldn't take it as such. I don't think we had a disagreement either but there is a serious doubt of sock puppetery. I was initially very certain that there was a sock puppetry due to the discussions starting and stopping right after each account became inactive. I am not anymore, though I want to leave the investigation ongoing because an admin might have a better idea on what is a sock or not. Also don't wanna close it due to any possible future inquiries that might rise again. A4516416 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not assume that you intended to attack me. I was mostly confused - I have often witnessed discussions where one user leaves, and another one takes his/her place without assuming sockpuppetry. Perhaps I am naive. Anyway, I can only reaffirm that I have never, in my entire Wikipedia career, used any sockpuppets. Applodion (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Insufficient evidence. Content dispute between a new editor (filer) and two other editors. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Despite consensus at the talk page and only participation of one, Applodion, the three are restoring material at Rojava without participating at the talk page. DongFen (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I just want to note that I am not using any socketpuppets. This is a content dispute, and editor ‎DongFen does not like the position myself, Sisuvia, and Lightspecs have taken in this discussion. Applodion (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sisuvia and Lightspecs never joined the discussion. Only you have. While the other 2 have reverted the same material only you opposed without discussion. DongFen (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, Sisuvia commented in the dscussion on 13 December 2019. I have even undone edits by Lightspecs in the past, such as here. Hardly the actions of a sock. Applodion (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would just like to say that a check is fine by me, as I have nothing to hide and never used any socks. However, I also want to state that the past accusation by A4516416 was also motivated by a content dispute and turned out to be deeply ironic, as A4516416 was an actual sock. Update: Oh! Turns out that DongFen is an sock of A4516416! I am honestly surprised (No really, I am - probably shows that I am too naive sometimes). Applodion (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The accusation by is a repeat of the accusation made by  (SPI) in October. A CU into these two (and a check for sleepers) seems sensible. Cabayi (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've put DongFen's other accusation at Sockpuppet investigations/Paradise Chronicle on hold pending the outcome of this CU. DF appears to be using SPI as the magic bullet in his edit disputes. Either that or, with 2 cases in 7 minutes, this user of 15 days experience is more proficient at spotting socks than users with years more experience. Cabayi (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've put this on hold.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DongFen is ✅ to A4516416. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)