Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keysanger/Archive

06 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I originally prepared this case in November 2013, I decided against filing when Keysanger blanked his page and appeared to retire. Chelios' contributions followed a similar pattern, stopping at the end of last year.

On 21 April Keysanger began editing again, followed shortly after  by Chelios123. Chelios started of with a revert of material on Chile–Peru football rivalry which was one of the reasons I very nearly filed the original report.

User:Keysanger has been keen to remove all references to orders of a Repaso from War of the Pacific for years see. (This is the Spanish equivalent to a No quarter order. There has been a long standing consensus to include such material on the basis of a wealth of sources.  When Keysanger brought the subject up yet again, User:Chelios123 appeared as a new editor and began to take his side in the content dispute.

In addition, User:Keysanger regularly refers to the topic ban imposed on User:MarshalN20, User:Chelios123 also referred to it to a 3RR posting and in a post to User:Sandstein (this lead to a contested blocked based on a weak association with the topic ban that was subsequently over-turned). In the recent dispute on Chile–Peru football rivalry, Chelios has been edit warring back the mention of the War of the Pacific that was the tenuous link that led to the contested block.

Disclosure I have been involved and tried to mediate the content dispute back in 2009. Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 9 when I edited under my real name. I also consider both User:Keysanger and User:MarshalN20 to be wiki friends and have tried to mediate between both in the past. As a friend of both, it has been difficult for me to bring this to SPI and I honestly hope I'm wrong. However, per WP:DUCK it seems likely and I can't in good conscience continue to ignore it. Especially as there seems to be a pattern of baiting around Marshal's topic ban. WCM email 11:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I have interacted with Keysanger for several years, and the interaction between Chelios and Keysanger has indeed been suspicious. Perhaps what initially prevented me from thinking Chelios was a puppet were his initial contributions to 9/11 humor. Nonetheless, after a few edits, Chelios drifted to areas related to Chile-Peru relations with the sole purpose of supporting Keysanger. Since then Chelios has been pretty much a WP:SPA. What was most revealing is the fact both Keysanger and Chelios not only "retired" at the same time (both blanking their user pages), but that they also returned to editing Wikipedia at the same time. Based on the history, it seems that there is either a sock or meat relationship going on here.-- MarshalN20 T al k 14:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly what is relevant here is that Me and Keysanger have only ever loosely agreed on one topic inside only one article which is of course is the topic of the alleged "repaso" events in the war of the pacific. To paraphrase the conversations in the talk pages I pretty much agreed that the "repaso" events were a subjective matter based on historical texts and their relevant authors. Keysanger wanted a complete removal of the topic; I merely just wanted a change in the wording explaining the repaso. Other than a query I made back in 2012 about movies/tvshows on the subject which was answered by Keysanger and Marshall I can't think of any other interactions with the accused. As eluded by currymoster before, the genesis of this investigation stems from the events that happened late last year when Me and Marshal had a disagreement on a minor subsection in the chile-peru football rivalry page, currymonster later joined in and sided with Marshal. I was aware at the time that marshal was under an edit ban but I wasn't privy to the exact details. I asked the relevant administrator for a clarification on the edit ban which I was promptly given. However the events that happened after that I can't be held responsible as the Article Lede (last edited by marshal) on the chile-peru page caused the Administrator to issue a full edit ban on marshal. Luckily for marshal the ban was successfully contested, however the experience properly left a bad taste on currymonster which is clear on his accusations. As for the other accusations, my homepage as been blank since June 2012, I wasn't aware that it means retirement.Chelios123 (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Keysanger's words

My first reaction was to LOL: I couldn't believe it.

This is a senseless claim. The "puppets" edit different articles (except War of the Pacific (WotP), where my last edit was on 19.Nov.2013, 7 months ago), they edit from different continents, they presented different arguments for the case WotP, and probably they have a very different style of English.

I won't be further responsive to the void assertions thrown in the claim. Jezebel and the Admin will dismiss the claims and will take the proper measures to impede the reiteration of such child's play.

WCM+M20, let me give you a well-intentioned advice: look for a interesting article where you are allowed to edit and put all your energy to improve it. Go to the next library, investigate the theme, search in internet, try to add some new relevant information to the article, improve the spelling, look for faults and correct them. WCM, you shouldn't have any trouble to cooperate with Wikipedia, with your English skills. M20, your English is ramshackle, but you can also do something with us. WCM+M20, stop making trouble through the articles, talk pages, admins noticeboards, and sockpuppet investigations. If you are in a hole, stop digging deeper!.

--Best regards, KS (wat?) 20:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and appear technically ❌; they don't even edit from the same continent.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Diffs

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War_of_the_Pacific/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=769416342


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same IP range, same English. Both are nauseated by WP and want to be blocked definitively. New1Keysanger (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2017 (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

 * Self-evident sock blocked. No action required re master account - this is minor silliness associated with a current Arbcom case. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)