Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KJ332/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Resubmitting the draft of Spellbound (2022 film) after it was repeatedly submitted and declined by KJ332 sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 7 February 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

 * Checked the account and obviously . However, Group 1 are ✅ to each other:
 * Group 2 are ✅ to each other:
 * Group 1 and Group 2 are to . Feel free to tag as confirmed if the behavioural evidence is strong. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's something I want to follow up on here before closing -, I sent you an email. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Have replied. You can summarise what I wrote in the email onwiki if you want, or I can if you prefer. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So I had a quick chat with Dreamy Jazz and I'm coming back to this. is the oldest account, so ideally the case should be moved there. However, while I was reviewing the behavioural evidence I noticed that this account doesn't look like any of the other socks. The username differs from the pattern, and the edits are entirely different (the other accounts edit exclusively about films and film companies). It is apparently CU-confirmed though. So perhaps someone with CU goggles can decide what to do here. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had a further look at this. The account has admitted ÆæÆœŧ is their account. The account  shares the same technical details with the account . This doesn't mean the account is 100% a sock. Possible reasons to explain this would be shared computers. Certainly older edits from these IPs support the assertion by Atavoidturk that the IP used by ÆæÆœŧ was a school. Perhaps another CU should review this situation, but from my point of view the account ÆæÆœŧ is not as strongly connected to the other accounts. I'm pinging  to perhaps discuss what actions should be taken with regards to ÆæÆœŧ. If ÆæÆœŧ is left blocked Atavoidturk would need a block (as this by extension a sock). Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Super-super busy day, I'll try to get back to this tomorrow. I'm fine with other checkusers reviewing this and taking whatever action they see fit. I haven't looked yet to see how strongly connected this account is to the others listed here, but hope to do so (or hope another checkuser can do so). Sounds like a case where behavioural evidence will be an important supplement to the technical evidence. --Yamla (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, obviously I can't see the CU side, but on behavioral evidence my take is that either this is a very unusual case of GHBH, or it's a false positive due to shared devices. I say "very unusual" because GHBH is typically much more blunt than this, tending to coincide more with blatant vandalism/harassment than disruptive special-interest editing. Not to mention, it's hard to fake the kind of improvement in communication style from   to .  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 18:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will come back to this later, but I am almost certain that the IPs used by ÆæÆœŧ are in a range used pretty exclusively by multiple schools. As such unblocking ÆæÆœŧ is a possibility, so please leave this open until me or another CU has had a chance to decide either way. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dreamy and I had some off-wiki communication about this when the case was new. Looking at this all again, I think the bottom line is Special:Diff/1070737829, where it is admitted that ÆæÆœŧ is the same person as Atavoidturk.  If we AGF that this was a legitimate alternative account, then there's no reason for them to be blocked.  At best, they are mis-tagged.  So, I'm just going to unblock ÆæÆœŧ.  Atavoidturk has stated that they no longer have the password to their alt account, so there's no practical benefit to keeping it blocked.  If they do begin to edit again, we can take another look at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yamla FYI, per your comment above. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Backfilling a few missing tags and closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Group 2 are ✅ to each other:
 * Group 1 and Group 2 are to . Feel free to tag as confirmed if the behavioural evidence is strong. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's something I want to follow up on here before closing -, I sent you an email. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Have replied. You can summarise what I wrote in the email onwiki if you want, or I can if you prefer. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So I had a quick chat with Dreamy Jazz and I'm coming back to this. is the oldest account, so ideally the case should be moved there. However, while I was reviewing the behavioural evidence I noticed that this account doesn't look like any of the other socks. The username differs from the pattern, and the edits are entirely different (the other accounts edit exclusively about films and film companies). It is apparently CU-confirmed though. So perhaps someone with CU goggles can decide what to do here. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had a further look at this. The account has admitted ÆæÆœŧ is their account. The account  shares the same technical details with the account . This doesn't mean the account is 100% a sock. Possible reasons to explain this would be shared computers. Certainly older edits from these IPs support the assertion by Atavoidturk that the IP used by ÆæÆœŧ was a school. Perhaps another CU should review this situation, but from my point of view the account ÆæÆœŧ is not as strongly connected to the other accounts. I'm pinging  to perhaps discuss what actions should be taken with regards to ÆæÆœŧ. If ÆæÆœŧ is left blocked Atavoidturk would need a block (as this by extension a sock). Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Super-super busy day, I'll try to get back to this tomorrow. I'm fine with other checkusers reviewing this and taking whatever action they see fit. I haven't looked yet to see how strongly connected this account is to the others listed here, but hope to do so (or hope another checkuser can do so). Sounds like a case where behavioural evidence will be an important supplement to the technical evidence. --Yamla (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, obviously I can't see the CU side, but on behavioral evidence my take is that either this is a very unusual case of GHBH, or it's a false positive due to shared devices. I say "very unusual" because GHBH is typically much more blunt than this, tending to coincide more with blatant vandalism/harassment than disruptive special-interest editing. Not to mention, it's hard to fake the kind of improvement in communication style from   to .  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 18:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will come back to this later, but I am almost certain that the IPs used by ÆæÆœŧ are in a range used pretty exclusively by multiple schools. As such unblocking ÆæÆœŧ is a possibility, so please leave this open until me or another CU has had a chance to decide either way. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dreamy and I had some off-wiki communication about this when the case was new. Looking at this all again, I think the bottom line is Special:Diff/1070737829, where it is admitted that ÆæÆœŧ is the same person as Atavoidturk.  If we AGF that this was a legitimate alternative account, then there's no reason for them to be blocked.  At best, they are mis-tagged.  So, I'm just going to unblock ÆæÆœŧ.  Atavoidturk has stated that they no longer have the password to their alt account, so there's no practical benefit to keeping it blocked.  If they do begin to edit again, we can take another look at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yamla FYI, per your comment above. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Backfilling a few missing tags and closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had a further look at this. The account has admitted ÆæÆœŧ is their account. The account  shares the same technical details with the account . This doesn't mean the account is 100% a sock. Possible reasons to explain this would be shared computers. Certainly older edits from these IPs support the assertion by Atavoidturk that the IP used by ÆæÆœŧ was a school. Perhaps another CU should review this situation, but from my point of view the account ÆæÆœŧ is not as strongly connected to the other accounts. I'm pinging  to perhaps discuss what actions should be taken with regards to ÆæÆœŧ. If ÆæÆœŧ is left blocked Atavoidturk would need a block (as this by extension a sock). Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Super-super busy day, I'll try to get back to this tomorrow. I'm fine with other checkusers reviewing this and taking whatever action they see fit. I haven't looked yet to see how strongly connected this account is to the others listed here, but hope to do so (or hope another checkuser can do so). Sounds like a case where behavioural evidence will be an important supplement to the technical evidence. --Yamla (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, obviously I can't see the CU side, but on behavioral evidence my take is that either this is a very unusual case of GHBH, or it's a false positive due to shared devices. I say "very unusual" because GHBH is typically much more blunt than this, tending to coincide more with blatant vandalism/harassment than disruptive special-interest editing. Not to mention, it's hard to fake the kind of improvement in communication style from   to .  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 18:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will come back to this later, but I am almost certain that the IPs used by ÆæÆœŧ are in a range used pretty exclusively by multiple schools. As such unblocking ÆæÆœŧ is a possibility, so please leave this open until me or another CU has had a chance to decide either way. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dreamy and I had some off-wiki communication about this when the case was new. Looking at this all again, I think the bottom line is Special:Diff/1070737829, where it is admitted that ÆæÆœŧ is the same person as Atavoidturk.  If we AGF that this was a legitimate alternative account, then there's no reason for them to be blocked.  At best, they are mis-tagged.  So, I'm just going to unblock ÆæÆœŧ.  Atavoidturk has stated that they no longer have the password to their alt account, so there's no practical benefit to keeping it blocked.  If they do begin to edit again, we can take another look at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yamla FYI, per your comment above. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Backfilling a few missing tags and closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)