Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jude1313/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Uranarse's behaviour is very similar to that of Jude1313. Jude1313 focused a lot on the Charles Thomson article, made a lot of major edits without discussing them, nominated that page for deletion, and Uranarse, on their second edit, proceeded to nominate that 8 year-old page w/ 60 sources for deletion.

The template clearly stated: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." So did I. The template also clearly stated: "If this template is removed, do not replace it."

That user went on to replace it, saying: "Page marked for deletion, should not be removed without discussion." I once more removed the template, saying: "Uranarse, you were not supposed to replace the template I removed. The template says: “If this template is removed, do not replace it.”"

They removed it again, telling me: "You have not followed the guidelines of fixing the bio to make it notable. You are edit warring." I tried on their talk page to make them understand that "or" is the keyword ("You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason.), but obviously, they would not understand. They then pinged me on the Charles Thomson talk page with the same undue remark, and I had no choice but explain it all over again.

I then contacted an admin who took care of the matter and blocked them citing WP:ATTACKNAME (their username looks and sounds too much like "you're an arse" or "you are an arse"). The admin also removed the template and confirmed to me that did I remove it myself, I would not have broken the three-revert rule 'cause a challenged prod is not supposed to be replaced.

Jude1313 absolutely wanted the Charles Thomson article deleted for "lack of notability":. Uranarse also absolutely wanted the Charles Thomson article deleted for "lack of notability": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Thomson_(journalist)&diff=prev&oldid=931202777.

Jude1313 strongly opposed Charles Thomson being referred to as an "investigative" journalist in the infobox and replaced that term with a number of words incl. "freelance":, &. Uranarse replaced "investigative" by "freelance investigative":.

Jude 1313 was blocked for edit-warring:. Uranarse started an edit war by repeatedly replacing a challenged prod, and they were then blocked under WP:ATTACKNAME:

Uranarse then attempted changed their username to Uranus979, but their request was declined under WP:ATTACKNAME (because of the "anus" reference so close to the "arse" reference), and they are still blocked as a result.

Their IP addresses and locations should be compared. They may very well be the same person. Israell (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Israell (talk) 20:37, 17 December 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
❌ and on different continents. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing per the above. The SandDoctor  Talk 06:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)