Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsnag12/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both are WP:SPAs dedicated to adding redundant content to Scientology articles. Toughnavigator was created a few hours before Smoothquandry's most recent edit on March 6. Toughnavigator made exactly ten gnome edits to random articles in two short bursts, and then added a paragraph to the semi-protected article Scientology as a business. This article had also been edited by Smoothquandry in February.

Both edits used template:cite, both including access-date, but not the required URLs despite that these sources are online, both used the phrase "according to scholar __" to introduce bland details which would not normally need attribution, and both added broken-up quotes which did not efficiently present information.

The usernames are also similar. These edits are very close to other Scientology-focused accounts spanning years, so this might be meat-puppetry. The bare-minimum edits to get auto-confirmation is a little too obvious to ignore. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2019 (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

 * /. The master is using proxies.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the master account for a week and the sockpuppet account indefinitely. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Adding substantially similar content to Scientology-related articles based on the same questionable source: Iamsnag12 / Smoothquandary. Iamsnag12 has been persistently adding this to numerous articles related to Sequoia University until warned for spamming, then Smoothquandary starts. This is also covered by Scientology sanctions and the CoS siteban may apply. Guy (help!) 20:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that - slightly more complex than expected, sorry about that. Guy (help!) 14:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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


 * It's probably stale, but for future reference, I think it's possible this overlaps with Sockpuppet investigations/Benjetson. Compare this from that group to this recent edit from Smoothquandary, for example. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Smoothquandary. At that time, Smoothquandary was using proxies, whereas the puppet,, was not. Smoothquandary was blocked for one week, and the puppet was indeffed.
 * Iamsnag12 is very Toughnavigator. In addition, Smoothquandary and  are ✅ to each other.
 * I have therefore blocked and tagged:
 * Iamsnag12
 * Smoothquandary
 * Burningfern
 * Please merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smoothquandary into this case as Iamsnag12 is the oldest account.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There were three accounts at Sockpuppet investigations/Benjetson. I found that two were ✅ to each other and was ❌. The two confirmed accounts are unrelated to the accounts here. However, Livetoedit1123 is  to the accounts here. There is no point in merging that case into his one, and there is no point in blocking Livetoedit1123, who hasn't edited since April 1, 2016. I am noting this for the record only. Thanks, .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Merged, closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Account was created a few hours after Shelly Miscavige (a prominent figure in Scientology) was protected in January. As with previous socks, this account made exactly ten gnome edits to random articles and then returned a week later to add pro-Scientology spin to the article. This died-down in March.

Recently this account came back to add obscure, sympathetic quotes to New religious movement, which is very similar to previous socks. Compare this edit by Smoothquandary to cult to Spiritedghoul's recent edit to the New Religious Movement article. These edits to NRM from Smoothquandary are also similar:, Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2019 (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

 * , . –Darkwind (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * to each other:
 * Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 04:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 04:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 04:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Behaviorally very similar to past socks. This editor is adding blandly promotional filler to Scientology articles. The formatting of these additions and their references is the same. As with previous socks, there is a heavy reliance on cherry-picking from religious studies academics who are described as "scholars" to pad-out already bloated articles. James R. Lewis (scholar) in particular remains a favorite source for quote-mining.

This account begin editing in 2022 with an unflattering edit to Paul Haggis, who is an opponent of Scientology. The account's second edit was to downplay the potential role of Scientology in the disappearance of Yolanda Klug

Compare "According to Bryan Wilson..." (referring to Bryan R. Wilson, who died decades ago but was being cited in the present tense)

and "According to James R. Lewis..." 

and "Scholar James Lewis explored the debate of the religious status of Scientology ..." 

to According to James R. Lewis... from a past sock

and "According to Donald A. Westbrook..." from another past sock

And so on, and so on, and so on.

As with previous socks (and other pro-Scientology sock farms) these edits appear superficially fine, but provide very little subjective information beyond making Scientology seem more 'scholarly'.

As this SPI was last active in 2019, I'm guessing there are other examples of pro-Scientology since then. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2024 (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

 * to the 25 September 2019 batch, even half a decade later (notes on cuwiki). No others seen.  --Blablubbs (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)