Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Durruti36/Archive

15 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * Possible sleeper.
 * Possible sleeper.
 * Possible sleeper.
 * Possible sleeper.


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both user edit warring in exactly the same content on Dae Gak Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Durruti36 reverting out content. He gets warned for edit warring and then Recordstraight1234 takes up the banner, as does  Deeplyconcerninggenthner. The other too I suspect are sleeper socks who have just made a few minor edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Apparently I made an error, I mistook one of the socks (the one currently as the master) It is actually user:Deeplyconcerninggenthner who has copied the others name, hence my error. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Oh dear - I'm afraid Darkness Shines who filed this screwed up. "Concerning Genthner" is fine; "Deeplyconcerninggenthner" is the likely sock of Durruti36, who likely also created "recordstraight1234". Durruti36 was warned for edit warring, and disappeared from page. 'Recordstraight' immediately was created and appeared on the page, and was likewise warned. then 'deeply...' showed up. When I warned 'Deeply...' suddenly 'record...' showed back up. the name "deeplyconcerning...' was created to show opposition for "concerninggenthner". Please correct, and look into the the three I list here.Tao2911 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not "disappear". Someone had to be the adult, so I decided to cool it for a while since you were freaking out. This is the only account I use and I have no control whatsoever over what any other editors are doing on that page or anywhere else on wikipedia. This sockpuppet "investigation" has the stink of retaliation about it. I suggest you try to calm down, Tao2911, and try discussing things rather than simply seeking ways to silence those you disagree with. --Durruti36 (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * nice tone. I didn't request this investigation, another veteran editor who took one look at that page did. I'm quite calmly going about my business, thanks, and doing my best to make sure you (or your potential socks?) don't whitewash the Dae Gak page. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Concerning Genthner" is not fine, he is violating user name policy and I have reported him to AIV. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was only referring to the sock allegation. He isn't one, at least not of this party.Tao2911 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that I was in violation of the username policy. I will either change the name, or request a different one.  Thanks.  cg 18:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerninggenthner (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Diffs please. As I assume you are more familiar with what's going on here than the rest of us at SPI, you cannot expect clerks and checkusers to establish your argument for you. WilliamH (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * apologies. I didn't generate this particular check request, but I am involved on the page in question, and welcome the investigation. I assumed that someone would simply run an IP check and find out if we have socks. But in short: user Durruti36 is an admitted student and heir of the figure profiled on the page in question (Dae Gak). He has fought inclusion of sex abuse allegations on page, first denying the validity of one solid source and not reasonably engaging other editors; when a second source (a newspaper) was provided, went from simply removing the information in edit war, to inserting extensive weasel phrasing throughout the page and transparent promotional material. When warned to not edit war Durrutti went quiet; user Recordstraight1234‎ happened to be created at that time and picked up exactly where Durruti36 left off; when that user was warned for edit warning, another user ("Deeplyconcerninggenthner", opposing editor "Concerninggenthner") was generated, and carried on the same activity. I don't have time right this moment to create diffs, but with this explanation, if you look at any of these user's edit history or the Dae Gak page, it's readily apparent - the edit warring, the sock trade offs etc.Tao2911 (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the page history it really doesn't take any virtue of the imagination to see socking. The following users are ✅ matches with each other: is technically ❌ to those accounts as far as I see, and there is some geographical evidence to suggest that a connection between them is. I am not clear how is involved though, and as such, has not been checked at this stage. In a situation such as this, there could be an element of meatpuppetry. WilliamH (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Myosho is unrelated, in fact in opposition to these other users. Durruti is an admitted follower of Dae Gak; the puppetmaster (whoever it is) clearly is also. Looking at her talk page, I see I warned Myosho for casting a wide net of uncited aspersions toward Dae Gak in talk, and for inserting biased, unsourced material against figure in the entry. So, she should not have been caught up in this net.Tao2911 (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * AS we do not know who the master is should this page be moved to one of the known sock names as Durruti is cleared? As there will no doubt be another round of sock puppetry in the future it would not be right to have to file each new case under Durruti. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With no recent activity in this investigation and the most prominent suspected socks dealt with, I think we can close (without prejudice to re-opening in the event new evidence comes to light or there is more strange activity). AGK  [•] 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)