Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fanofblackened/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( Original case name)


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

Suspected sockpuppetry converging at Articles for deletion/Guido Henkel. All accounts tend to edit in music-related articles. The fact that three of them all took an interest in an obscure video games-related AFD outside of their normal editing habits set off warning bells.

and - Consecutive edits on an extremely obscure band page Bleeding Through

and - Both editors add what appears to be insider information about said band's personnel changes, suggesting some kind of COI relationship with the band. "Kumar again left in early 2002, after completing all of the touring for Dust to Ashes and recording the band's sophomore album, Portrait of the Goddess." from the first diff and "Street had been asked to contribute a few keyboard parts to select songs on the release, but after the material turn out so well, she wound up contributing keyboard parts to all of the songs and joining the band as a full member." from the second diff are unsourced and unlikely to be known by anyone other than someone related to the band. Second diff also modifies the first quote to read "Kumar was ultimately kicked out", again suggesting a personal connection.

- OrangeZestAir seamlessly picks up the conversation that I'd been having with Grueslayer with no acknowledgment that anything had changed. Appears to have logged into the wrong account to respond?

and - OrangeZestAir and Fallingintospring both use an identical construction in their AFD responses, consisting of a paragraph, followed by bullet pointed items, and signing off with two dashes -- and a signature.

and - Fallingintospring and Grueslayer demonstrate native fluency in German.

and - Grueslayer responds to OrangeZestAir's ping in just five minutes.

- OrangeZestAir creates userpage for a completely separate user, appears to realize their mistake, and blanks it immediately. This is the only strong link to Rasputininskia, which is a newer account with far fewer edits than the other three. Based on the relatively sparse interaction between accounts and the discovery of this 4th account solely because of a mistake on the sockmaster's part, I suspect these are just a fraction of a larger network of puppets, hence my request for CheckUser in addition to SPI. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

- Adding Fanofblackened to SPI. Another smoking gun mistake in which Fallingintospring accidentally writes a comment while logged into the wrong account.

and - Based on the above, I found another instance in which this sock network is used to create the illusion of consensus, this time at Deletion Review. Fallingintospring writes in support of a discussion started by Fanofblackened. As I suspected, there are more socks in this network than I had originally identified. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The evidence for Grueslayer felt so compelling as I was compiling it but now it feels so slight compared to the smoking gun mistakes that I later found for OZA/Ras and FOBE/FIS. I certainly felt ganged up on by socks at said AFD and the strange interaction between myself, Grueslayer, and OZA at was THE inciting incident that initially aroused my suspicions that I might be dealing with sockpuppets. I didn't find any of the other evidence until looking into it later. I've been trying to find more behavioral links to Grueslayer but it's a challenge when they have so few non-mainspace edits (i.e. edits in their own voice as opposed to encyclopedia tone). All I've got is my hunch and what you see here. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Interesting, only seeing this now as I got notified by the page move. Shouldn't I have been notified a bit earlier? Like, through a ping, or a talk page message? Kind regards, Grueslayer 05:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * So, I'm prepared to endorse for all accounts but the master, as the OZA/Rasputin and FIS/FOBE connections are pretty damning. However, I'm not seeing that strong a case against Grueslayer at this time. I'm not convinced that the supposed account mixup between them and OZA was that, rather than one person just taking another's side, and speaking the same language and responding to a ping aren't sufficient evidence. It would be a bit inconvenient to check those four now and only later decide to check Grueslayer against them, so I'm going to briefly put this on status and ask if you have any more persuasive evidence against Grueslayer. If not, that's fine, I'll still endorse for the other four.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 11:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Axem Titanium. Well, as noted in my previous comment, I think this edit for OZA and Rasputin and this edit for FIS and FOBE are grounds for checks of all four accounts. with respect to those four. I am not endorsing with respect to Grueslayer, but of course if they are involved in this they may well turn up in checks of the others' IPs.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OrangeZestAir, Fallingintospring, Rasputininskia, and Fanofblackened are all ✅ to each other. On the technical data alone, I might only call them, but given the behavioral evidence provided, I'm comfortable calling them confirmed.  There's a few hints that I see in the publicly-available editing history that makes me doubt Grueslayer is the same person, so I didn't see any reason to do any checks beyond Tamzin's limited endorsement (i.e. I didn't check Grueslayer).  I'll block the accounts but just move this to checked so a clerk can sort out the tagging after what I assume will be a case rename. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * .  N.B.: Whenever I move a case that has led to blocks of some but a finding of likely innocence for the initial alleged master, I suppressredriect, as a courtesy to a user in good standing. However, in this case, I realize you had referenced the old casename in your block summaries, so if you'd like me to create the standard SPI soft redirect I can. But IMO the "Tamzin moved X to Y without leaving a redirect" notice on the redlinked page is an adequate soft redirect of its own.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 22:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh also, @Roy, I think the block messages for the sox you blocked may need to be redone. Currently they say "as a sockpuppet of User:Grueslayer". --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 22:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Updating block log messages. Also, to answer the question from my talk page, the CU data led me to believe a sleeper check would be unprofitable, so I skipped that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We usually only notify people of SPIs if there's something we need to ask of them. This isn't a consensus-building process like ANI. All discussion here is meant to be oriented toward investigation. If there isn't evidence that someone's a sock, a clerk/admin/CU will refuse to take action on the case, no defense required. If it is obvious that someone's a sock, well, no defense required for that reason; potential mitigation can be pleaded in an unblock request. And if it's somewhere in between, then a clerk/admin/CU may ping someone to SPI and ask them to explain their side of the story. This case was the first of those three options: No strong evidence was presented against you, so no action was taken, without needing to hear any explanation from you. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 06:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)