Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CatechismDatabase/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * 1) All wrote the same "Strong Support" comment at Talk:Holy See/Archive 1 (and they were the only ones in support), with Pseudo-Dionysius commenting within 20 minutes of Mundo
 * 2) All signed their comment with a signature inside round brackets:
 * 3) Mundo Elevado was registered on the same day that CatechismDatabase was blocked
 * 4) All have similar user pages:
 * 5) All use identical edit summaries: "MoreSimple" and "Fits better"
 * 6) All use same weird capitalisation in edit summaries, e.g.
 * 7) Same topic focus. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2019 (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

 * CatechismDatabase was softblocked for a username violation and allowed encouraged to establish a new account. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - Re-voting on merger proposal crosses into WP:ILLEGIT. Please confirm & check for sleepers. Cabayi (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * . In the future, when you endorse a request like this one, please acknowledge that the alleged master is  but that notwithstanding you want a CU to check the suspected puppets. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The two suspected puppets are ✅ to each other and blocked without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Catholic topics, especially Eastern Christian, Early Christian Fathers. raised the allegation in November; he may know more. Elizium23 (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

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


 * They don’t have similar edits. I don’t see any evidence.  E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm not seeing any evidence of socking. Of the specific points noted in Sockpuppet investigations/CatechismDatabase/Archive, the ones that seems applicable to an IP are 5 and 6, regarding the style of edit summaries, and I'm not seeing that here.  "Catholic topics" is a pretty broad area, so that doesn't tell me much either.  I'll leave this open in case somebody else has some other insights.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a convincing connection here either. This IP exhibits none of the distinctive capitalization in edit summaries that were evident in the master and his two previously confirmed puppets.  And although the IP clearly likes "Catholic topics", they don't seem attracted to the same "Catholic topics"; the master's obsession, for example, with changing "Eastern Orthodox Church" to "Early Christianity" in infoboxes doesn't seem evident at all in the IP's work.  We need to be careful not to paint an overly broad behavioural brush when applying the duck test to editors whose shared interest in a given religious, political, or cultural topic doesn't have to mean they must be a single individual.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)