Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gd123lbp/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

In Special:Diff/986960661, Anomalous25 added content to the David Starkey article that defended Starkey, furthering a position advanced by Gd123lbp for months (most recently in ). Gd123lbp had been edit warring on the article in the past day (Special:Diff/986868072 and Special:Diff/986873455). Requesting CheckUser to confirm behavioral observation. —  Newslinger  talk   00:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See also the similar edit summary style in Special:Diff/986960661 and Special:Diff/986973189. Edits made after the start of this investigation are, of course, informed by the contents of the investigation. —  Newslinger  talk   02:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

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

The accusation that this supposed sock puppet account is furthering a position advanced by me is not evidence of sock puppetry, else everyone who agrees with each other about things would be faced with the same accusation. The "position advanced by me" is a bad faith argument because as can be seen in the talk groups I have argued for more objectivity, factuality and NPOV. This is not a 'position' in the sense of an opinion, as can be seen in the discussions. The accuser takes the view that I must be 'pro' starkey because I have criticised the overwhelming negative tone of the article, when my point is to follow wikipedia policy on objectivity and NPOV, so the article should follow a more balanced tone and be more factual than opinion based. I have also recently written a page on starkeys book on Magna Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta:_The_True_Story_Behind_the_Charter, which has included a weighed up section on reviews, a similar amount of positive and negative feedback - so this is evidence of my impartiality.

I am not alone in this criticism, despite being outnumbered in the discussion groups that the accuser has been involved in. They must believe I am the only person, which is why they have made the accusation that I must be running another account at the same time to try to push my 'position'. As can be seen on the talk page, criticism of the word 'controversies' has been made back to 2011, so I am not the only one to make this point. The fact that the person who has made this accusation has been in a disagreement with me seems to suggest a bad faith case by an editor making a fake case for an "attack".

Furthermore, I have looked at the edits Special:Diff/986960661 by Anomalous25; the supposed sockpuppet account and found they were 1st party sources so I deleted them from the page. So, I do not even agree with their edits! This is a bad faith argument. Gd123lbp (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The two accounts are generally unlikely to be controlled by one individual; on a technical level they are ❌.  Maxim (talk)  13:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing without action per the above. The SandDoctor  Talk 14:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)