Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiniamAmbachew/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Instead of acknowledging and showing remorse for the thousand innocent Amhara civilians that are being persecuted in Ethiopia; users such as Boud are more interested in altering phrases to downgrade and minimize AmharaGenocide.

New user  almost the same text, ''Instead of acknowledging and showing remorse for the thousand innocent Amhara civilians that are being persecuted in Ethiopia; users such as Boud are more interested in altering phrases to downgrade and minimize AmharaGenocide. ... BiniamAmbachew (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)'', even including BiniamAmbachew's signature. This could either be a lack of originality (plagiarising someone else's words) by a new user, with and  doing minor rephrasing while retaining the plagiarism; or it could be a sockpuppet.

There are several other new users at Talk:Amhara genocide who look suspicious, with all the same style of not understanding the difference between WP:SYNTHESIS and well-sourced information, presenting similar arguments, and trying to make personal attacks. However, with very few edits (except for, who seems experienced and wise enough not to run a sockpuppet), the only evidence for them being sockpuppets would be CheckUsers looking at IPs. Boud (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * @Boud, this is an act of WP:POVRAILROAD— opening a case against those provided opposing views in a contentious discussion Talk:Amhara genocide that you initiated. This is not appropriate and can be seen as a method of intimidating (WP:BITE) other "developing" editors through branding, discrediting, and pushing for banning, see . This is a violation mostly demonstrated by some experienced editors as Forms of WikiBullying, WikiBullying & WP:ADMINABUSE. What is expected, in this case, was providing tools instead of opening proceedings that again reflect what they call "admin roulette"— throwing unnecessary AE or ANI to eliminate opposing views— putting one in the middle of an ongoing discussion on the articles talk page, especially while the question of “bias and conflict of interest” against @Boud is already raised and presented. This can be seen as an accusation of others of harassment and is not constructive as it already creates "a nasty cycle,"  and prevents others from making relevant edits. Petra0922 (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to present arguments why the two users above are unlikely to be the same real person, since you appear unconvinced by the evidence that I presented. The investigation will only lead to a decision of sockpuppetry if the evidence is considered strong enough by people independent of me: please see Defending yourself against claims. Boud (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC) (minor update Boud (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC))

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - To make it simpler, Boud has proposed renaming the article. The master, who has been around for a while but has very few edits (large gap between 2021 when they were blocked and now), opposes the move. The listed sock, who is brand new, also opposes. The following new accounts also oppose the move:


 * There could be some sort of offline notice bringing separate individuals to oppose the vote, but, like AfDs, it is still vote stacking and I think warrants a check. Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically, this lot are ❌. Suspect off-wiki canvassing via social media or some other place that trades in outrage. firefly  ( t · c ) 15:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action. Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)