Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Latecappu/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both look like a WP:DUCK case to me.
 * The way they created their userpages and talkpages are very similar: SM. SP
 * Similar POV-pushing on Golshifteh Farahani: SM. SP; adding unsourced/unreliable claim about the religion to a BLP article and tagging their edits as minor. Wario-Man (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The new account just restores sockmaster's edits.
 * Also interested in same topics Golshifteh Farahani, Shaghayegh Farahani, and Behzad Farahani. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

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


 * POV? Yet sourced by ABC News, no less. Check for yourselves. I am the same person no doubt, no case there, just a brand new user trying to add the same reliable source and content. On the other hand, this is now about 1 person (Wario-Man) trying to own a Wikipedia article (Golshifteh Farahani) for himself by banning away all other editors. This is excatly why dedicated new editors who actually try to contribute feel so helpless and just give up altogether. Nasheen (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind Wario-Man got Admin reported for Edit Warring 3 times in a row. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Nasheen (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet Wario-Man deleted all the evidence and warnings from his Talk page, again and again.. Nasheen (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a very strong behavioural resemblance here, also to the IP user who was indefinitely topic banned from BLPs by L235 for exactly this behaviour in May. This weird obsession with people's religious background/upbringing is pretty idiosyncratic, and the "reliable source" added by both accounts and by the IP is nowhere near being a reliable source for that particular content, so it is not something that three different people would have done independently. --bonadea contributions talk 15:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think both accounts should be indef-blocked. Have you seen this, his disruptive edits on this SPI case, his activity on my talk page? As Bonadea said in the above comment, the issue is not new. Used anonymous editing (IP) and registered accounts for POV-pushing on a BLP article. Ignoring all reverts, edit summaries, and warnings. I'm sure they will disrupt that article again. In my opinion, this is a WP:NOTHERE case. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Since these accounts edited sequentially and not simultaneously, is this really an incident of sockpuppetry? Their editing didn't overlap. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Note Blocked for a week for disruption independent of this SPI. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ User:Nasheen to User:Latecappu. Recommend blocking Nasheen indef and imposing a one-week block on Latecappu. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm with Liz here, this isn't socking (sequential editing, not evading sanctions - one could make an argument that they were evading scrutiny though). I am closing without action, but if Latecappu comes back, one of the two should be blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)