Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eskinderk/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

It's the combination of the 2018 chronology and the April 30th edits that I think gives this one away: This is either group editing or socking. Singularity42 (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Singularity42 (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * October 13, 2018: Milkygebre account created.
 * October 24-25, 2018: Milkygebre makes edits to three different Ethiopian-related articles, including including articles related to the Ethiopian government branches. Then ceases editing (until April 30, 2022).
 * October 24, 2018: Yoseftafese account created. (No edits until the April 30, 2022 series of edits described below).
 * November 1, 2018: Biruktefera, Destagurmesa and Adeyabebasahle accounts created. (No edits until the April 30, 2022 series of edits described below).
 * December 2, 2018: Biftu.gebre2018 account created.
 * December 3-7, 2018: Biftu.gebre2018 starts editing various Ethiopian articles, including ones on Ethiopian government branches. Afterwards, ceases editing until April 30, 2022
 * April 30, 2022: Within one hour, all six accounts suddenly begin to add banks to List of banks in Ethiopia, with one account creating a new copyvio article about an Ethiopian bank.

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

 * A check of the editing history of these accounts leaves no doubt whatever that they are acting together. Also, either for a group of editors acting together or for one editor using multiple accounts, it is a very strange editing pattern, with all accounts having been made about the same time, and then all suddenly coming into coordinated use four years later. However, is there any evidence of abuse of multiple accounts? A few editors cooperating is not in itself abuse. JBW (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure what to make of these edits. I haven't reverted them myself as I am not familiar enough with the subject area, but it felt spammy by introducing all these external links to banks that don't have their own articles. Is it abusive of multiple accounts? In the sense that an editor could have done the same thing from a single account, probably not, but we would probably have that editor on our radar for introducing external links like that - if it had been more spread out by the different accounts (i.e. not within one hour and multiple accounts) the odd editing behaviour might have been missed. Singularity42 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it has a dubious feeling about it, but I can't put my finger on anything specific enough to justify any action. However, a clerk will decide whether or not to endorse your checkuser request, and that may or may not clarify things. JBW (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All of those are ✅, plus who is (by far) the oldest account. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)