Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bdemenil/Archive

24 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Special:Contributions/Vwikiv, Special:Contributions/Trout71, Special:Contributions/Bdemenil, Special:Contributions/Sengkiim have a lot in common. Trout71 registered recently and from contributions, it is clearly it was a sock. has five edits in AFD Discussion Page (paid editing may come into play, looks like a duck from comments in AFD). has only one edits and that too only in AFD Discussion Page. has only six edits and that too all in AFD Discussion Page. I am not sure for rather a checkuser is needed for the check. Moreover, all IPs no doubt has only one intention to disrupt the ongoing AFD discussion at AFD Discussion Page.  Thunderlagoon  ( talk )  17:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I am not a sock. This accusation is a clear violation of wp:agf. I invite any interested party to review my contributions. I have created the article The bull of Navan and have extensively improved the article Clíona Ní Chíosain. This is inconsistent with the claims of User:Thunderlagoon. Further I will bring it to admins attention that Thunderlagoon's account only started editing today. His account was also created today. And yet here we are at an SPI. I think that is somewhat inconsistent. Anyway, this user had made an accusation with no evidence against me. I request he either produce evidence or remove me from the list. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather than being desperate, please read the evidence given above. That might help you out. :)  Thunderlagoon  ( talk )  17:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any evidence. You have made assertions alright. But there is no similarity in editing patterns or styles between me and the other users you have accused. You are a one day old account and you seems to be a wp:SPA. Trout71 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Moreover, The Bull of Navan has been created after listing of Lois de Menil for deletion at (click here for AFD discussion) which can be seen | here. Edit on Clíona Ní Chíosain has been too made after Lois de Menil has been listed for deletion. I really do not understand the purpose of taking this SPI too seriously @. Let the checkuser committee decide that. Moreover, listing in SPI is not a violation of WP:AGF at all. Admins Note Other Users who have been significantly on Wikipedia for long have expressed their concerns over this suspected sock at AFD Discussion.   Thunderlagoon  ( talk )  17:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have given significantly evidences, rather than turning this page into a garbage, as I said a checkuser can determine the reality indeed. Moreover, for your clarifications, WP:DIFFS and WP:CONTRIBS are given as evidences above. Please refer before being too desperate to comment.  Thunderlagoon  ( talk )  18:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's the thing. The contributions don't strengthen your case. There is no pattern between me and the other users. The only place we have all edited is that ADF. I have edited quite a few ADFs. []. Anyway you are free to do as you wish. But explain one thing then. Your account is a few hours old. Yet you show familiarity with the discussion over Lois de Menil and you have picked out editors from that discussion very specifically to accuse of sock-puppetry. Seems a but....fishy no? I think you should nominate yourself for an SPI. Also a checkuser wont be carried out as you have not substantiated your claims with evidence. Your Admins note is also lacking in evidence. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Trout71 The Contributions does serve as Evidence. I don't think it worth to make you understand until you are willing to do so. The point that made me launch this SPI is not the editing of AFD, it's the only editing of AFD. Editing the AFD that too to always oppose any other user that supports the deletion and targeting does seem like sock. And yes if you aren't a sock, you shouldn't worry about that. Moreover, checkuser has to be carried out irrespective of your wish. For your information, the listed socks are suspected not confirmed. .  Thunderlagoon  ( talk )  18:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Thunderlagoon You have avoided my question. Why is a one day old account making an SPI? Trout71 (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That has no way related with your sock account. Here you are to defend your claims in this section rather than edit war. Your disapproval of Checkuser is a lot suspicious and request to unstrike your comment makes me more and even more suspicious of your account. | Evidence here   Thunderlagoon  ( talk )  18:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Thunderlagoon Your comment says I am a sock account rather than an accused sock account which is a personal attack. Anyway, what user:Viviv does is his business. To be fair it makes it less likely that I am a sock of his as that would be a pretty stupid edit if I was. The age of your account is very relevant. You are likely and wp:SPA and this SPI is malicious. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (Neutral observer who just went and had a look) Wow, just looked at the discussion, it's an absolute mess. Someone is almost definitely playing with WP:COI and/or sockpuppets there- I would definitely support Checkuser. The contributions seem similar too, which is bound to cause suspicion., if you're not a sock then you have nothing to worry about, it's just unfortunate that you got mixed in with some users, some of whom are almost certainly socks. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Relevant info: There's also now a discussion at WP:ANI. I would personally be in favour of checking User:Thunderlagoon as well. Their contributions are mainly on AfD discussion, plus this, where they are demanding undeletion of a page deleted 6 days ago- suggests maybe sock/meatpuppet of another user. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that. I am from Vadodara and don't think it's wrong to write an article over the most repute school in our town and in country as well. I saw that the page was deleted recently so before creating again, I wanted the confirmation from the deleting administrator so as to avoid any sort of conflicts in future. :)  Thunderlagoon  ( talk )  18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A one day editor, launches a SPI, uses the SPI initials in a response and uses DUCK? I think that DUCK may apply to you Thunderlagoon. AlbinoFerret  18:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see how your actions could be genuine, but also how they might not be. Also, the striking seemed a bit premature, would have preferred to wait for the Checkuser results. Frankly I'm just confused by the AfD, and so think it's easiest to Checkuser everyone who might possibly be suspicious. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I preferred sticking over removing for leaving it to others the reason for striking. All the Oppose votes were mainly made by IPs which is very suspicious. Moreover the actions of this user is bound to be more suspicious. I also stated that any experienced user is welcomed to unstrike if needed. And for @, I have spent my complete day today on Wikipedia reading policies and guidelines due to my retirement 3 days ago. :) Wikipedia policies are clear and descriptive to understand. ;-)  Thunderlagoon  ( talk )  19:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thunderlagoon, have you edited under another account name on Wikipedia? Even spending three days reading about policies, this are pretty insider actions to take for a 10 hour old user account. Liz  Read! Talk! 19:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

When I am being asked to confirm, I have no other accounts on Wikipedia. I spent earlier reading articles on Wikipedia and certainly the policies as well but never bother to create an account due to hectic work of a bank branch manager. Aftee retirement I planned to spend my time for good. :)  Thunderlagoon  ( talk )  19:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Important Note: The IP addresses all geolocate to USA, seems to be from India, and  seems to be from Ireland. So it seems possible that neither ThunderLagoon nor Trout71 are sockpuppets (although obviously it depends on the other accounts). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So this thing is done now is it? Trout71 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you're definitely clean, and Thunderlagoon is definitely blocked. The people with likely/unlikely is up to an admin to decide. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. I did point out serious inconsistencies about this SPI from the beginning though and there is a certain irony in a 1-day-old sock being allowed to run an SPI. I don't think the request should have been allowed to proceed as it breached common sense. Still I thank User:Bbb23 for resolving this saga. Can I quote this SPI as proof that I am not a sock-puppet in the future. I have repeatedly been accused and it is rather tiring. This seems to be the way of discrediting the views of people you don't agree with. Trout71 (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The results are:
 * and are between  and very
 * is between to very
 * is ❌
 * Insufficient evidence to block or run a CU on . No comments about the IPs. has been blocked as a sock of, which is unrelated to this SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at this mess earlier with the idea of starting an SPI but found the results too much of a mess to get very far. I think there are at least four groups here:
 * Bdemenil (and possibly, who appears (see deleted contribs) to be Benjamin dM, primarily interested in Dominican music and a deleted article about himself. Bdemenil appears to be interested only secondarily in the articles on the rest of the de Menil family.
 * Vwikiv, Trout71 amd the LdM AfD socks.
 * some other single-purpose editors of articles related to the de Menil family (e.g. Dominique de Menil and John de Menil), such as and maybe, and
 * some editors interested in Cambodian topics in general, including the Center for Khmer Studies associated with the de Menils (example: ).
 * The socks on the AfD are obvious socks but appear to be aware of checkuser capabilities and have presumably taken countermeasures, so I think checkuser results are likely to be inconclusive. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The CU findings are what they are. CUs are not magical, but they do establish a degree of likelihood of a technical connection. Sometimes, they are inconclusive because of attempts to dodge the results, but, frankly, I don't see that here, although I'm not as experienced as many other checkusers. That said, I think it's unfair to say an account is a sock when the finding is ❌, i.e., Trout71. As for the new accounts you list, they are all stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I had thought that Trout71 was associated with the other SPAs on the AfD but evidently I was mistaken. Sorry, Trout. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've indeffed and tagged the master, Vwikiv, and Khmer15. No action against the other named accounts. I have not looked at the IPs' edits, but they are stale. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)