Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GOLDINI1/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

There's currently a discussion going at AfD about whether Trevelyan Street should be deleted or not. Toby3141 had been WP:Bludgeon a one sided RfC with every editor voting delete. In the last few hours 3 recently created accounts and an IP, all with only one edit being on the RfC itself, have shown up to vote to keep. All 4 keep votes have extremely similar writing style to Toby3141.

Refer sample writing from Toby3141

Refer keep vote from Zac Yates

Refer keep vote from 61.8.27.210

Refer keep vote from CB0001

Refer keep vote from Gary5362 TarnishedPathtalk 02:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


 * I understand why you may believe this, but I assure you this is not the case. I recently sent an email of the discussion to a number of people, and requested to them they made accounts to contribute to this discussion. The reason the votes were sent so quickly to each other is because I sent the email to those people at the same time, and they have similar writing style to me because we are very close. If this is against the Wikipedia policy, I would be happy to remove them, but I assure you the accounts were most certainly not made by me.
 * Regards,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Toby3141 please refer to WP:MEATPUPPET. The behaviour you have just admitted to is not cool. TarnishedPathtalk 04:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect this is just a case of canvassing. (Not an expert in SPI, though.) LittlePuppers (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with this in a way. Whilst I also aren't familiar with SPI protocols, I believe I was simply notifying others to contribute about a discussion. Canvassing implies I was disrupting the normal consensus decision-making process. This is not the case, as I was simply notifying more people of this discussion. The only reason I personally notified others of the discussion was because there hasn't been a single message on the discussion page in over 3 days, and as the discussion is nearing an end, I wanted to get the opinion of a few others before it closes. If you believe though that the messages on the discussion page were inappropriate and violating Wikipedias policies, you have my consent to delete them. Toby3141 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @LittlePuppers, canvassing accounts that had zero edits up until the point that they edited the AfD and accounts that all edited within an hour of each other using similar style of writing? TarnishedPathtalk 04:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * looking at it now the writing style is more similar than I thought; I wouldn't be surprised either way. Some actions by the other users demonstrate a lack of knowledge of WP formatting (followed by Toby replying to the message or fixing it, some time later), which makes me think it is asking a bunch of neighbors to comment; on the other hand, some of them do mention very specific things that I wouldn't expect someone new to know about (but perhaps learned through the AfD discussion), which is a bit suspicious.  Again, I have next to no experience here at SPI, though. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the phrasing is pretty tight between Toby's comments and the keep votes, that along with the timings of the account creations and the fact that they all have exactly one edit being the AfD. An admin will have to decide whether it goes through to a CheckUser or not, so it's their call. At the very least Toby has admitted to WP:MEATPUPPET which I'm not really buying. TarnishedPathtalk 05:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, none of the possibilities are great. LittlePuppers (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if this SPI turns up nothing that a WP:CIR block might be the right way to go. –Fredddie™ 05:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprised, although that may also depend on whether anything along these lines continues now that the AfD is closed. LittlePuppers (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fredddie, someone actually approved the article through an AfC. More concerning is there is at the very least WP:MEATPUPPET behaviour. If admins decide there is nothing to see here re: sockpuppet, hopefully they make a decision regarding the meatpuppet behaviour. TarnishedPathtalk 06:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I may be misremembering, but I think the user moved it from draftspace himself. (Obviously a bit more difficult to check the logs now.) LittlePuppers (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @LittlePuppers I didn't know that was possible. You could be correct. I'm not familiar with the process. I've got carpal tunnel syndrome so the idea of writing whole articles has never appealed to me. TarnishedPathtalk 06:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @TarnishedPath yeah it's not super common, but it does happen sometimes that a user will get autoconfirmed in the process of going through AfC and decide to take matters into their own hands. (Technically it's not an acceptance through AfC, but the result is pretty much the same.) LittlePuppers (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry,
 * I obviously checked the guidelines before emailing the discussion out to more people, but heavily misread this passage from canvassing: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."
 * I understand that what I did was completely wrong, and there is no doubt that my account should be banned and all of my work deleted.
 * I assure you that this will never happen again, and that meatpuppeting is a serious offence. I don't know what a WP:CIR block is, but it sounds like something I deserve.
 * This is the last message I will send on this account. I will not submit more drafts and articles for Trevelyan Street. I will not create another account. I can see I did something extremely wrong, and I'm not going to argue that I was in the right. After this message, I will delete this account as effectively a ban. I don't really see what else there is for you to do about the account, but please don't target anyone else, just me, as this is all my fault.
 * Finally, I would like to highlight how much of an honour it has been to be on this journey of Wikipedia. I have loved every moment of submitting drafts, finding sources, talking on the discussion page, and chatting with some moderators. The past few weeks have been a story I will never forget, and I really thank you for putting up with my endless messages! I obviously never suspected it to escalate this far, my true motives and end goal has just been so innocent, but this has just been such a learning experience for me.
 * Thank you and sorry again.
 * Regards,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Toby3141, you're a extremely new editor. If what you say is true then don't be so quick to give up. I'm not completely convinced, but I'll leave it to the judgment of others. Ps, Trevelyan Street got deleted not because you canvassed others, but because it just wasn't notable. It might be where a fair few people like to call home but that doesn't rise to being encyclopaedic. TarnishedPathtalk 06:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There is too much going on here to resolve without a formal CU request, so I have made one. The sudden proliferation of like minded accounts suggests to me that they are one and the same. I hear loud quacking. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Exceedingly. TarnishedPathtalk 06:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , : Please, refrain from posting further comments in this SPI unless it is to post concrete evidence (diffs). Further discussion here only makes processing the case harder. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * - Endorsing a check on the accounts. MarioGom (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The 4 named accounts are all ✅, along with . What really has me confused about this case is 's (reverted) NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevelyan Street which is so bizarre that the first thing I thought was a hijacked account, and the second thing was that Toby3141 was their sock, which I'm discounting in deference to their long history on the project.  Gidonb can you explain what was going on with that close? RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * - Blocking all the accounts I found. Technically, Toby3141 isn't the oldest account, but it's the oldest with a non-zero edit count, so I'm tagging on the assumption that's where we'll file this.  I'm placing this on hold because I really want to hear from  about their NAC before we close this out.   RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that Gidonb meant to snow delete (but obviously cannot as they do not have the tools), per this comment at Libstar's talk page shortly after their close was reverted. This appears to be in good faith rather than anything nefarious. -- Kinu t/c 17:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, that explains it, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct, I tried to close the AfD as snow delete as I did not see much good come out of it. Oddly, I forgot about the buttons I do not have and made the wrong close. Was really happy that User:LibStar noticed and reverted me so I thanked them on their talk page. Clearly I had already done enough that day before I made these edits! gidonb (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Moving to checked to let somebody handle the remaining IP. RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved to the oldest account (GOLDINI1) and re-tagged. MarioGom (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing. I don't think we need to do anything with a single-edit IP. MarioGom (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You might want to fix the tag on however :-) RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ooops. Good catch. MarioGom (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)