Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Henrymancini333/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Henrymancini333 (account created 5-21) did this edit on 5-21: diff1

Which I reverted on 5-21: diff2

Then the newly created account: 69Avatar69 (created 5-23) reverted my edit and added almost identical wording. diff3

The new account has only edited this one article, and the original account only did two edits, this article and one other. Also, it seems "unusual" to create a new account with a name so similar to my account name to only edit one article that was most recently edited (reverted) by me. --- Avatar317 (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Potentially also account: ParrotPatriot, which was created 4-21, (only did 7 edits, all to this same article) and did an almost identical edit to the above, in a different place in the same article: diff_PP-1. --- Avatar317 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please also see the edits AND DELETIONS this user has done to THIS page. Thank you! --- Avatar317 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Hi yes that was me and I lost the password to that account and can't log in anymore (edit: i actually had the right password, I didn't realize Wikipedia logins are username case-sensitive). I am new to wikipedia and am learning how to avoid edit wars. Please excuse my mistake. Please check the article; I fixed the issues you pointed out (thank you) and I think it is all factual and relevant and contributes to the article.

Since you read what I deleted, I apologize for implying you were acting in bad faith--it was purely my misunderstanding of "per capita" versus "per parcel". Thank you for reverting those edits. I'm doing my best here to learn.

69Avatar69 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

69Avatar69 (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

69Avatar69 (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry. This one.

69Avatar69 (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , are you confirming that both Henrymancini333 and ParrotPatriot were you? If so, which account do you plan to continue editing on? -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Soft blocked the forgotten password accounts. Don't lose this password. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

In May 2019, the editor Henrymancini333 was exposed as having edited under two other accounts: 69Avatar69 and ParrotPatriot. The editor claimed that they had forgotten their password, leading User:TonyBallioni to give them a soft block and instructing them not to forget their password again. The accounts that I listed are blatant sockpuppets of Henrymancini333. They all exclusively edit pages related to housing policy reform in the United States and they near-exclusively add NIMBY-style POV content to those articles. The accounts regularly specify "peer review" or lack of peer review in their edit summaries Here, one of the IP editors suggest they are not involved with the other accounts, thus if the accounts claim they "lost their password" upon an affirmative checkuser check, don't buy it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Avatar317 has experience with these sockpuppets, so I'm pinging them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The admin User:El_C has warned one of the accounts for promotional editing, so I'm pinging them. I also get strong COI and PAID vibes from these accounts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The admin User:Grendelkhan has dealt with some of these accounts on the YIMBY page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Drmies, the check didn't show anything regarding RevengeOfSalieri and Qwertyuiop1234567898? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, those are stale. I looked only as a CU. If you want behavioral blocks, plz ask the next admin. And to answer another questions--sequential accounts if an earlier one is blocked is also block evasion. Or, depending on the situation, it can be considered a violation of CLEANSTART, either in the letter or the spirit. But here, you also have problems which by themselves are already blockworthy. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Re Avatar's comment: Not only did I repeatedly ask the accounts to identify the master account and the sockpuppets (which the accounts opted not to do and instead responded in an evasive way which suggested that the intent was deception), but it strains credulity that multiple accounts are needed for editing content related to housing policy in the US (unless the editor has an undisclosed Conflict Of Interest). The presence of multiple accounts also prevents accountability, makes it incredibly hard to discuss things with them, and gives the false impression to those checking article edit histories that there is a lot of support for whatever content it is that they're adding to and removing from various housing policy articles. The user was also explicitly informed in the last sockpuppet investigation not to keep switching accounts (last time, the excuse was that they had lost their password). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You said:  That's a VERY good point, I hadn't thought of that...do we have a policy contraindicting that type of account use?  Perhaps we should for that reason.  Thanks!! --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The first thing I noticed about the YIMBY page was how much editing was taking place and by so many people. I was also surprised to see that an older version of the article with lots of research in it had essentially been scrapped, but I didnt bother to look more closely at it given that there appeared to be so many accounts editing before and after that major change, and given that the tendentious editor whom I was interacting with was not behind the change (or so it seemed). So it's incredibly deceptive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the editor appeared to have some experience with me and my editing prior to my edits on the YIMBY page despite the fact I've rarely edited pages related to housing policy, and suggests this editor has a past of editing broadly in US politics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too, and thought it strange. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I have seen many of this editor's edits and have occasionally interacted with this editor since the sockpuppet investigation that I started, and while they have used many SEQUENTIALLY changing accounts, I have not seen the editor use them ABUSIVELY.

Pinging and a question for  and : Is using sequentially changing accounts (and not returing to old ones) a type of behavior frowned upon? Because I don't know and couldn't find any specific policy regarding it. Please see my comments in a conversation with the editor in question here: (Editing from sequentially changing new accounts) --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I appears that may also have some experience with the changing accounts policies, and interacted with the editor in question on the same talk page I linked to above.  Thanks for your input if you do! --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've bounced off this editor while editing YIMBY; their opinions are pretty different from mine, and they have a moderately unpleasant habit of making a lot of small edits in quick succession rather than making one large edit for each significant change or editing session. But I haven't seen anything really untoward. I'm reminded a bit of Wonderfool (and their subsequent accounts) on Wiktionary, which seems to be kinda tolerated over there. grendel&#124;khan 03:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The promotional claims aren't being investigated carefully. El_C was telling me to take a WP page change to the talk page. GrendelKhan had added what was essentially original research in a blog to the YIMBY page (from the blog host Medium) and I read the WP page and noticed it had other user-generated yet inappropriate sources like Facebook, etc. so I tried adding it, and El_C thought I was promoting the website "Medium." I was in fact trying to improve the WP page to include this. El_C told me to take it to the talk page, which I did, and the page is changed as a result. GrendelKhan is a wikipedia admin and made an addition to the YIMBY page that was not in line with Wikipedia policy (adding OR in a blog host). I politely informed GrendelKhan of their mistake and fixed it, see their talk page.

I had to correct an admin who should know better, and I think it's ridiculous that my edits on that page are being labeled "POV pushing." I improved that page. Much of it in its current form was written by me. Please consider this against the POV pushing accusations and also please consider who is making the accusations, along with their disciplinary history on Wikipedia. I don't know what I am being accused of. I wasn't abusing multiple accounts to edit protected pages, those ones weren't even protected. Editing nonabusively from multiple IPs is allowed. Please treat me fairly and don't conduct a witch hunt.2600:1012:B042:B2A:B0B4:D9E6:8021:1BDD (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 62 I'd like to amend what I said earlier--I actually do know what was wrong--I realize editing the same page under multiple usernames is improper use of multiple usernames even if the edits arent abusive. I didn't realize that it was at the time, i thought it was allowable multiple fresh starts from what were soft blocked accounts. Please consider my intent and ignorance and for those who have oversight access, that too. I am sorry for wasting all of our time.2600:1012:B054:50A8:9544:2BF5:F4A0:2C2D (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure a nontrivial number of people derive job security from the unanswerable questions we were trying to answer on that cursed article, so i plead my innocence when it comes to POV pushing, but as it pertains to sockpuppetry, i see what i did wrong.2600:1012:B054:50A8:9544:2BF5:F4A0:2C2D (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I CU-blocked CrenshawLine, Fefkwkefe8, JeepCherokeeXJ, Dsfadfdsa3, Fkdslk939. No comment on the IPs, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, for those with oversight OTRS access, see 2020062110004863 in relation to this case. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing this month-old report without further action because the remaining accounts are stale and the IPs haven't edited in quite a while. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)