Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariana Williscroft/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

Inexpiable began edit warring on the article Execution of Nathaniel Woods. They then went to another of my recent edits, at Murder of Yetunde Price and reverted my edit there. After I changed it back, only minutes later, an account that is seven days old went to Execution of Nathaniel Woods, made the same revert that Inexpiable made, and also went to Murder of Yetunde Price and made the same revert Inexpiable made there as well. In that 7-day-old users first few edits, they were already using words like "peacock" in their edit summaries, and in their last revert of my text, the summary said "Still ignoring WP:Consensus (RW 16.1)" - I've made over a thousand edits and I don't even know what RW 16.1 means. Are we supposed to believe that this Gabrielle103 sprung from the earth, fully formed as an experienced editor, and went directly to two articles where Inexpiable was reverting me, within minutes of Inexpiable attempting to report me for edit warring? It seems impossible to me that the two accounts are not somehow connected. Wes sideman (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Wes sideman (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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

I'm not a sockpuppet account. I was patrolling the recent edits and saw that Wes has been edit warring, so I reverted their changes back to Inexpiable's (I say their because I'm not sure what Wes' pronouns are, if they have them that is). This is clearly visible from my recent contributions, in which I have edited multiple articles on or around the same minute as the previous edit (such as Dangerfield Newby, 2022 Lebanese general election and Population displacements in Israel after 1948). I have experience editing Wikipedia before on a previous account which I no longer use. I'm just some rando woman, just an innocent woman lol. Gabrielle103 (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Declining to check Inexpiable. However, I ran a discretionary check on Gabrielle103 due to them clearly not being new and jumping straight into controversial topic areas. They are ✅ to, who is currently pblocked and under scrutiny (making this an invalid CLEANSTART), and I see a lot of logged-out editing in controversial areas regardless. I'm indeffing Gabrielle, full-blocking Ariana for two weeks. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
First suggested by User:Genericusername57 at Quick CU requests. Compare Ariana, Gabrielle103, and Stephanie's userpages (links are to old versions), all containing the same custom userbox about being trans, two containing custom userboxen featuring File:Lesbian Pride rainbow flag.jpg, and two containing userboxen about being South Asian. Overlap is significant across multiple unrelated pages, and leads us to Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi (permalink), where Stephanie has transparently picked up for Gabrielle in a discussion. Similar writing style in edit summaries. Obvious precocious behavior from Stephanie from the start. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * As Ariana has a previous tempblock for socking with Gabrielle, and has earned an indef as Stephanie even without being known as a sock, Ariana and Stephanie's block updated to be a sockblock.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * fwiw with a suspicion of a sock to compare (logs) against, I'd go with on the available technical data — not useful to you, but more for the benefit of the next CU looking at stale data  — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I strongly suspected socking within their first week of editing, but wasn't able to connect them to a specific master, CU-wise. Sometimes you just gotta let these things play out...-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, exact same here on behavioral analysis. Another clerk and I spent a solid 20 minutes running through theories in that same time period, but came up empty. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)