Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gtoffoletto/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
The rhetoric being used by these two accounts seems very similar and I note that the puppeteer account is banned from the topic, though the account is still active in other areas. Interest in the UAP stories as of late could just be a coincidence, quite a bit of familiarity with Wikipedianisms from early on, rapid removal of warning notices indicating a familiarity with Wikipedia rules. this diatribe strikes me as being very similar to other diatribes launched by Gtoffoletto such as this one or this one. jps (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC) jps (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jps 1001 I'm acronym-challenged. What's UAP? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * UFO on a euphemism treadmill. jps (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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

 * These two accounts are technically ❌, and there isn't anything to suggest that either has engaged in improper use of multiple accounts. Closing without further action.  Girth Summit  (blether)  12:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
The overlap between these two accounts was drawn to my attention when the accused sockpuppet produced a fully-formed article Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena in a very similar style to the same sort of argument and exposition that the sockpuppeteer was banned for back around when the account first started to be active. I hate to be this kind of suspicious, but I have seen this sort of thing show up before in these areas and so I think we need to be cautious. jps (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Checks were run in this case about a month ago, with a finding of unrelated. I was thus hesitant to run more checks, but saw something in the editor interaction that caught my eye, so I went ahead.  I got the same result.  As far as I can tell,, , and  are mutually ❌.  Lots of people are into WP:FRINGE, so it's not terribly surprising to see multiple editors touching the same articles in those topic areas.  Any future filings in this case will need much clearer behavioral evidence for CU to take any action. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)