Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.saze/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Dr.saze focused editing efforts into adding AFI nominations to film articles. This was discouraged by WikiProject Film and Dr.saze was told to stop adding the AFI nominations in the following discussions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film (Permalink), User talk:SchroCat (Permalink), and numerous times on their talk page (Permalink). The editor has been met with effectively exclusive opposition, and when a new suggestion relating to the AFI nominations was rejected by myself and another editor (diff1/diff 1, part 2, diff2)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Permalink), a new editor TobRob expressed support for Dr.saze's new proposal (diff).

TobRob's speech pattern feels to me is similar to Dr.saze's: notably in a way that suggests English skills that are "not strong", to quote another editor. Though, I admit that the evidence there is thin by virtue of small number of data points, only the section at WT:FILM and on a third editor's talk page. (Another small part is the usage of "honour" (diff) versus note on talk page re: "honour" and EngVar, but this is, again, very small, and may be coincidence.)

TobRob's contributions are to undo what Dr.saze has done, but Dr.saze has stated that they will be undoing their own contributions. TobRob has also contributed only in relation to AFI nominations and began editing only after Dr.saze accepted the community consensus and apologized for what was deemed disruptive and unwanted editing: 12:23, August 21, 2016, Dr.saze apologizes, 12:31, August 21, 2016, TobRob makes first edit, undoing and admonishing Dr.saze.

It's a more trifling piece, but TobRob's explicit praise of Dr.saze's idea also strikes me as suspicious, as Dr.saze has on multiple occasions stated that they felt editors opposing their edits were "ungrateful" and discontented: diff1, diff2.

Given Dr.saze's history of unhappiness at being met with very strong opposition regarding the addition of AFI nominations and the sudden support of a new editor appears suspicious to me. I also note that TobRob claims to be a member of the AFI, though, I'm not exactly sure how that factors in. If indeed a sock, perhaps to give appearance of stronger support, though I am not sure. I have my doubts about my own suspicions, and I do believe it may turn out to be coincidence. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr.saze has added a comment to WT:FILM, signing it as TobRob: diff. Has also removed, replaced, and finally removed this comment. The comment connects to a conversation TobRob had with : diff ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I went so far as to set up a case myself before noticing that one already existed. Oops. Dr.saze's signing of a post by another editor, followed by repeatedly adding and deleting said comment, certainly aroused my suspicions, and I'd be quite curious to hear their rationale for that. I was going to warn them about deleting other users' comments until I realized they were the one who'd made the comment to begin with. DonIago (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a nice discovery but it is a miscue. TobRob is my brother. We are both living in the Czech Republic and sharing the same computer. My name is Šimon Žáček and his name is Tobiáš Žáček. He had multiple experiences with AFI and he knows what it should be like even in Wikipedia. So he did not support me in my AFI edits here but he welcomed my offer of the summary of AFI's recognized films. But we do not cover that. You can persuated yourself on our mails. And that mistake you are writing here about originated when he wanted to log in on his account but he entwined. And now he is gone for a week. After he left I discovered this miscue and delete it. I know that must be confusing for you so you can give me any questions.Dr.saze (Dr.saze) 16:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh good grief, this is classic WP:BROTHER. Not only that, this person claims to be from the American Film Institute but cannot even speak/write correct English : . Not only that, they are replacing Dr.saze's AFI nominations while pretending to oppose him in edit summaries . That was the account's first edit ever. This is amateur hour for socking, but it's clear socking nonetheless. Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I know you would like to see me be blocked,Softlavender. But I am telling you the truth unfortunately for you. I can take a picture of our birth certificates or other documentations. Or you can persuate yourself in another way. That is not my problem.Dr.saze (Dr.saze) 07:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing that you may have a brother, which proves nothing. We are disputing the fact that your brother uses your computer, works for and represents the AFI (when they don't even live in the U.S. or speak decent English), and edits Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. Do you know what? Block me! Because everything I will do in future will do some problems to you. And I am tired of your attacks. I thought the Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia when I came. But from the beginning there was one warning within other. So if you want to be rid of me go ahead and do not waste your time with further warnings. Dr.saze (Dr.saze) 07:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I have requested CU as this user has felt like a returning user from the very beginning, as noted (by me and in some ways by ) in the various ANIs filed about him. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've had doubts about Drsaze for a while, although more along the competence lines than anything else. In terms of TobRob, their first edit convinced me it was socking, but it appeared to be a one-off (I meant to check the user history, but been distracted by other matters recently). Even if we suspend all willing disbelief and accept the "brother" line, we're still into WP:MEATSOCK territory with this one. – Gavin (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MEATPUPPET, rather? I did indicate in my initial filing that I was doubtful, and I was assuming good faith, but signing a comment from TobRob and now the WP:BROTHER defense quickly whittled that away. And, really, even if looking past all this and pretending this issue doesn't exist, I do echo SchroCat's WP:COMPETENCE concerns, but this isn't the right forum for that. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  13:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Doh!, yes, MEATPUPPET, of course. – thanks. - Gavin (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ten, is there any way I can prove my innocence or is it already hopeless for me? Because if you do not believe me there is no place for me there anymore. Dr.saze (Dr.saze) 14:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The two accounts are ✅. I've blocked the master for two weeks, and blocked/tagged the puppet. The master's story is plausible. Assuming the puppet account is in fact his brother, the question becomes whether they were nonetheless acting in concert, in which case it's still prohibited by policy. Because it's difficult to know that one way or the other, I've given the master account the benefit of the doubt and blocked them for two weeks instead of indefinitely. At the same time, it doesn't sound like they are a net benefit to the project, but that issue needs to be handled independently of SPI. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)