Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klaus Bells/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The strongest piece of evidence here is the behavior around Arnulf Seminary of Theology, which I strongly suspect is a hoax (see Articles for deletion/Arnulf Seminary of Theology for the reasoning). That article was created by OnSpeech; while Klaus Bells made only minor edits that even a good-faith editor could make to a hoax article, he wrote this first revision of ULCO Seminary (U.S.A.), which named the seminary. Both of those citations are accessible with a free Internet Archive account (Wilkins, Truemper), and neither make any mention of Arnulf. They also interacted at Articles for deletion/ULCO Seminary (U.S.A.)

Some additional information tying together seemingly unrelated articles they both wrote can be found in the three AfDs I recently opened:
 * Articles for deletion/Christian Church International (created by OnSpeech)
 * Articles for deletion/Arnulf Seminary of Theology (created by OnSpeech, edited somewhat by Klaus Bells)
 * Articles for deletion/International Association of Therapists & Medical Doctors (IAAT) (created by Klaus Bells) Vahurzpu (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' User OnSpeech is indeed a close family member, suffering from a progressing mental disorder.

That’s why I helped him earlier sometimes, especially when he was still in better health. I just noticed his activities about that country and I can only apologize in the name of our entire family for the chaos he created. I feel personally deeply ashamed that we had no better eye on him.

Considering the situation and the chaos my family member (who means a lot to me) created, and given the fact that I will now finally remove his free internet access, it would be best if the articles nominated for deletion would be deleted.

Independent from the fact that the institutions are real, I’m not sure they like to be on Wikipedia against their will because nobody can be sure that “OnSpeech” did confuse facts or made other grave mistakes even in the earlier states of his condition. I also doubt their notability despite knowing they exist and had some meaning for “OnSpeech”.

We even had some trouble with one of these entities before because “OnSpeech” created a website in their name!

Therefore rest assured that I will personally take care that his caretakers will be informed and his Wikipedia account will be closed. Maybe someone can tell me how to do that?

As to myself, I wrote IAAT in good faith since we experienced them as very helpful in the worldwide search for help for OnSpeech’s condition. This one with their consent. If they are notable enough, I don’t know. But of course it can be deleted, I’m not a stakeholder or otherwise interested to work on this article any further. I’m busy enough and can assure you that I will not be an active member here.

Since all this, despite the stress “OnSpeech” caused the Wikipedia community, contains quite personal medical information about him, I would appreciate if the articles and this page here could be deleted swiftly. Thank you very much. (Btw: I’m writing under my real name with just a minor change. That makes the privacy issue an even bigger deal) Klaus Bells (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * VahurzpuEl_C, as to the further question by El_C. As mentioned in my explanation I got informed about the Rhodesian catastrophe too late. OnSpeech is with us and only part time in an institution, but I was busy with a thousand things last week and weekend and did not take care as much of him as I should have. Now I’m spending my time in office to help to clean the mess up. And as I also mentioned, “Rhodisa” has crossed a line that will lead to OnSpeech getting his free/unsupervised internet access taken away and of course his Wikipedia account deleted. It’s absolutely understandable that you’re angry, but taking someone with still intact intelligence but a progressively disrupted thinking away his freedoms is a bold step. But we (as the family and caretakers) will do that now. The red line is finally crossed. I assure you that after deleting the nominated articles Wikipedia will be cleansed from OnSpeech’s dreamland world. It would be helpful if you could tell me how to delete an account. I will then immediately take care of it. If it’s possible with the Wikipedia rules you can also delete his account directly. As mentioned before I am here under my real name with just a minor change. Therefore I can’t get more specific. If necessary you can call me or another family member when there is a private way to provide you our phone number. Should the Wikipedia rules demand it, you can also ban me. Be sure that we have mountains of problems here as a family (not internet related) and my least worry would be giving up my rightful account. The family situation (OnSpeech) in getting worse in every aspect. Please let us clean that mess here away, Wikipedia is correct, we continue our battle at home with something nobody should experience and Wikipedia will never experience such chaos again, at least not from my family. Thank you again. Klaus Bells (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , how do you account for the Rhodesian connection? El_C 14:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, I gather it was a WP:LITTLEBROTHER (or some variation therein)...? Weird. Anyway, now who will I talk to about the rise and fall of Garfield Todd's reform govt.? El_C 00:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * is ✅ to, and technical evidence does not tally up with the above comments. Accounts - TheresNoTime 😺 15:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing. Blablubbs (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The strongest behavioral evidence I have is the activity at Conservative News Agency of New York. Gwenda73 created this article, and Klaus Bells is the only other substantive editor. I am confident that the article is a hoax; see Articles for deletion/Conservative News Agency of New York for evidence. Given the very low off-wiki profile of this supposed organization, it's very unlikely that these are two separate editors who fell for a hoax perpetrated by the other. As described in the AfD, Gwenda73 falsified references to vaguely relevant books that did not mention the article subject; this matches up with both Klaus Bells and OnSpeech.

The other odd quirk I noticed was in article titles. Gwenda73 created Conservative News Agency of New York at Conservative News Agency of New York (CNA-NY), similarly to Klaus Bells using the acronym suffix at International Association of Therapists & Medical Doctors (IAAT).

The long gaps in editing history suggest that this may be a sleeper account; therefore, I think it's worth blocking even though it hasn't edited in over a year. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2021 (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

 * It's certainly possible, but they haven't edited in well over a year, so a block would be hard to justify per WP:BLOCKP. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Pro forma. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2023 (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

 * Topics, overlap, etc. Quite to the log from a technical perspective.  --Blablubbs (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Those revisiting this case in the future may want to have a look at deleted contributions as well. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)