Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Creffel/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Adding nationalistic POV sentences like "Azerbaijani village" to abandoned villages in Armenia, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (CuriousGolden) Having interactions with the blocked editor prior to his ban telling him "he was just about message CuriousGolden" [|7]. Editing almost exclusively same pages with very similar writing under the pretext of "guidance" from CuriousGolden [|9]. Editing almost exclusively pages which CuriousGolden edited under the same pretext, edit-warring on same pages restoring POV edits [10], [11], [12], [13] (here he is claiming "properly cited information" of a biased non-neutral website with similar title, explanation [14]). His writing style is very similar to CuriosGolden [[sigma], and he justifies it under "guidance from him" pretext as I was told. These kind of coincidences don't happen especially if you look at his contributions history prior to Golden's ban and after 15 (starting from April 4th, when CuriousGolden was banned). The user exclusively edits on the banned editor's pages, often times restoring POV edits, while he was told multiple times to keep the POV sentences out and only restore cited information (in times even the cited information was a biased non-neutral source). On top of that, he interacted with the editor prior to the ban in very personal level like "messaging him" and his writing style after the ban of Curious was very similar to him. I think he knows him outside of wiki and after the ban, he lended his account to Curious, that's my speculation. Either way, the similarities of his edits/comments, timings and pages edited are just too matching to be otherwise, no "guidance" context can excuse in such matter in my opinion. I'm new to creating Sockpuppet investigations, and I apologize very much if I did anything wrong regarding technical aspects of opening an investigation.

The user in question opened a case in admin's noticeboard after my investigation 16.

User mentioned reddit multiple times now, and I was told not to bring up the connection due to wiki outing policy. Out of respect for wiki rules, I'll remove the messages myself.

Would you kindly suggest other ways for me to present the relevant information? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Greetings. I am writing here because I am currently being accused of sockpuppetry. My defense is simple: please check my IP and my account uses, and this will be quick.

As for my relationship with the user CuriousGolden: I have never interacted with the user outside of Wikipedia. I am assuming user is a male and he was the first person to message me on Talk when I joined Wikipedia. He introduced me to the rules and I learned some editing things from him. I conversed with him on my Talk page and on his Talk page prior to his ban. I messaged him on his Talk page when I was not sure about what to do, like about using Thomas de Waal as a source, or about my dispute with a user named LouisAragon. When his account was deleted, a message was posted on Reddit on the r/armenia subreddit celebrating his ban. I anticipated a raid on his former edited pages and took some of them under my supervision. This is about it. Everything can be seen on my talk page and on his talk pages.

Please don't hesitate to ask me for further details if need be. Thank you. - Creffel (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I do not believe that the things you linked are crucial for understanding this SPI. If you believe that the incident cannot be handled adequately without that information, email the checkuser team at . Regardless, please stop discussing it here; it has been hidden from the page history in accordance with the outing policy. Thanks. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 10:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Closing this since this is now at cu-en and I'm not convinced that Golden is using Creffel's account, though proxying or similar is certainly not out of the question. Creffel's writing style and edit summaries are consistent before and after Golden's block and their English proficiency seems to be slightly lower than that of Curiousgolden. If off-wiki evidence is needed to prove proxying or justify the need for CU, SPI is not the correct venue, and private channels are the way to go. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 11:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See also my more expansive explanation here. Blablubbs&#124;talk 12:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Now that has blocked CuriousGolden as a sock of Creffel, I'm thinking this case should be moved to CuriousGolden as the older account.  Is that OK with you? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid I don't quite follow – CuriousGolden is (and has been) blocked as a sockmaster (Sockpuppet investigations/CuriousGolden/Archive) for socking as, at least as far as I can tell. -- Blablubbs&#124;talk 14:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , If I'm following things correctly,, , , and have all been found to be the same person, so should be consolidated into one case.  And of that bunch, CuriousGolden is the oldest, so they're the master. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Creffel is accused of being a sock of Curiousgolden but not blocked or otherwise sanctioned, and nothing is determined yet since the filer thinks that off-wiki evidence is needed to prove a connection and I deferred to cu-en (after scrambling for an oversighter and deciding that it's probably not a good idea to continue this here). Gnominite is indeed a sock of Curiousgolden, Bruhhh83 was blocked as a meatpuppet. For the time being, everyone is filed correctly. Blablubbs&#124;talk 22:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , As commented, my raise of CuriousGolden's block from 3days to indef was as a CU confirmed master of Gnominite, not as a sock of anybody else. This case, tying CuriousGolden to Creffel, appears to hang on the outcome of an email to the checkusers. If the choice were mine - I'd be inclined to tag the case as endiorsed for CU attention just to ensure that the blocks and tags were adjusted if necessary once they come to a decision. Just my 2¢ since I was pinged.  Cabayi (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Tossing this back on the CU queue; please see the thread above in which there's some confusion about how this case relates to CuriousGolden. Seeking the assistance of those with CU-colored goggles to help us sort it out. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I've gone back and read all the history. I see where things went off into the weeds.  Reclosing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)