Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunmathewleo/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * All the 4 accounts created a separate sections about "Joseph Kallarangatt" in the BLP noticeboard with the same complaint days from each other.. Ezhuth edited one of the sections created by Straightwrite. Arunmathewleo edited the section added by 120.89.74.184 -   SUN EYE 1  16:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Straightwrite, Arunmathewleo and Tomytomthomas made similar statements, Defamatory statement and Vandalism are evident..., Defamatory statements are included:, Defamatory statements are made against Bishop Joseph Kallarangatt.. Tomytomthomas and Straightwrite used a colon at the end of their first sentence in the notice board.-  SUN EYE 1  10:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Calls sourced content as "Vandalism" Vandalism is felt, Vandalism are evident, Sheer vandalism is detected


 * All the accounts calls citations as footnotes;footnotes 3 and 4..., footnotes 3,4 and 5..., footnotes 7,8 and 9..., footnote 19-  SUN EYE 1  07:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ezhuth wrote vandalism is felt recently in their unblock request. Arunmathewleo used the same sentence as I pointed above.-  SUN EYE 1  15:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Noting ongoing discussion at . --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On the surface, these are mostly all ❌, but there's enough proxy use that I think  would be a better call.    Straightwrite might be  to Ezhuth, but there's some particularly strong clues that the UAs have been spoofed there.   -- RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I could see this going a number of ways. I've asked the four accounts to explain what's going on. till then.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 22:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I put this case on hold because I could think of some good-faith (although warnable) explanations for the conduct described here. The response of Ezhuth, the only account that remains active, appears to be an outright denial of any form of collaboration, inspiration by the same off-wiki request, etc. I've said before that I don't like accusing people of lying, but I'm afraid I don't believe them. Let's consider these four posts (assuming from the get-go that IP120 = Arun) Tommytomthomas, 9:27 on 11 Nov. IP120/Arunmathewleo at 17:11 on 11 Nov. Straightwrite on 15 Nov. Ezhuth on 19 Nov.. Some of this is repeating things from the filing; some is not.
 * All four attempt to remove negative material from the article on Joseph Kallarangatt.
 * The first and second reference legal documents.
 * All four reference the alleged rape of a nun by another bishop and argue that it is not relevant to Kallarangatt's article.
 * The first and fourth start with a w link to the article, while the second starts with an la link. The latter is recommended in the BLPN preload header, but the former template had never been used before at BLPN, and has not been used since.
 * The second, third, and fourth allege vandalism, all in somewhat unusual phrasings (even factoring in EngVar).
 * The first, second, and fourth reference the article's second paragraph, with the first calling it "para 2" and the fourth at one point calling it "paragraph 2".
 * The first, second, and third all start with "defamatory statement[s]".
 * Crucially, all four refer to references as "footnotes". Both the third and the fourth do so with syntax "a,b and c".
 * As such, I cannot see any plausible good-faith explanation for this conduct. Either one person made a throwaway to make a BLPN post, and when it failed to gain traction tried again with an old account they'd never used but remembered the password to, then tried another throwaway, and then finally tried their main; or these are multiple people who saw the same Facebook post or WhatsApp forward. The relatively wide spacing of the edits tilt me toward the former hypothesis, but as the three accounts other than Ezhuth have not edited in the ~month since their edits, and have been asked to explain themselves, I will defer action at this time, but will note on their talk pages that if they would like to resume editing they must first reply to me. As to Elzhuth, since they appear committed to denying any form of off-wiki coördination, if this isn't sockpuppetry it is deceptive meatpuppetry. : Please block Elzhuth indefinitely. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 19:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good work. . --Blablubbs (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Blablubbs. I have notified the three remaining accounts that they should reply to my message first if they wish to return to editing. If they fail to do so, they should be blocked (either as a stopgap measure till they explain themselves, or for-cause if the evasion of the question is clearly bad faith). Closing. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 19:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Heh, I noticed the exact same thing. And yes, it's just as distinctive as you'd think . With that one extra push toward the true-socking hypothesis, I'd be fine with blocks of all accounts at this point, but since the other accounts/IP haven't been editing recently, I'm still gonna hold off on requesting any. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 15:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)