Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Life200BC/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

There has been a lot of meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry regarding the carnivore diet on Wikipedia this year from Zalgo and other socks because they have advertised Wikipedia to "carnivore" communities on social media platforms such as Reddit and their agenda is to remove criticisms of the carnivore diet.

Yesterday a new account was blocked for disruptive edits in promoting the carnivore diet and attacking other editors as "biased" and "vegans". The account JustANameInUse wanted "fad diet" removed from descriptions of the carnivore diet. JustANameInUse is very unlikely to be a new account. For example, his very first edits were on the help desk to complain about alleged vegan bias on Wikipedia in regard to the carnivore diet. This user also complained about vegans at the administrator noticeboard. Every edit JustANameInUse made was complaining about alleged "bias" in regard to the carnivore diet. JustANameInUse has publicly admitted to using an IP address on articles that mention the carnivore diet and the edits on this IP were a "test" to see if they were reverted or not, please see this diff. This IP was editing the Carnivore (disambiguation) article removing the term "fad diet".

JustANameInUse also left a message on my talk-page which they removed. After JustANameInUse was blocked per WP:NOTHERE a different account left a message on my talk-page saying exactly the same things as JustANameInUse. Life200BC has complained that the term "fad diet" should be removed from the Carnivore (disambiguation) article. I believe there is behavioral evidence to suggest JustANameInUse and Life200BC are the same user or related in some way. I list this below in a bullet point.


 * JustANameInUse used quite a rare word that I have not seen used in Wikipedia context before. On several occasions this user used to the term "qualifier" in regard to the term fad diet, please see this diff "The disambiguation page has no sources listed for the fad qualifier", on this diff you scroll down, he used this term another two times as well. This is the first time on Wikipedia I have seen a user use this word this way, in fact I have never seen that word used before in any discussion in regard to diets. On my talk-page after JustANameInUse had been blocked, Life200BC left me a message  using the same word "qualifier" "So may you explain why I shouldn't remove this qualifier as it seem currently unneeded and unsupported". I find it unlikely two different users would be using this exact same term and requesting for the exact same thing to be removed from the same article.

In regard to Life200BC on their userpage we read "Wikipedia has become more toxic and new editors like myself are struggling with people not liking change or another perspective." It appears they do not like Wikipedia very much. This looks like a sleeper account who has made edits on Australian roads. Is JustANameInUse an alternative account of this other user to edit a more controversial area? Or are these accounts meat-puppets?

For me, the most suspicious thing is the use of the term "qualifier" and the insistence to remove "fad diet" from descriptions of the carnivore diet which both accounts have done within a few hours of each other. The Carnivore (disambiguation)​ is not a high-traffic article. I find it unlikely two different people are requesting the same thing within a few hours of each other. If you check JustANameInUse's edits or even his talk-page, you will see he talks about "bias" all the time, this matches a recent edit summary Life200BC made about removing bias but I would agree this is not strong evidence but the other behavioral evidence I listed is stronger. Zalgo/BecomeFree has done a lot of sock-puppetry on the carnivore diet and JustANameInUse uses the same talking points but I didn't file this under his SPI because of the Croatian IP. I don't know quite what is going on here but I believe JustANameInUse is Life200BC or they are connected in some way. There are Reddit boards for "carnivore" diet trolls where they have advertised Wikipedia's coverage of the diet so this may be a case of meat-puppetry. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Hi, that on my User Page refers to an experience where edits I made on there weren't being accepted and I was being bad mouthed because they didn't like my edits. I simply moved away from that section in Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you think I'm a sockpuppet, but it was an honest question asking why the term Fad is need when I looked at the page it links to and Fad isn't mentioned anywhere. I'm sorry for trying to make Wikipedia a better place. I'm sorry that you've had previous isssues with people vandalising your pages but I'm not. If I was I would've changed the page myself, but I didn't because I knew it was controversial. Anyway why would I make edits all around Wikipedia then suddenly want be a sockpuppet. Life200BC (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC) I used the term qualifier as that is the term I saw in the edits and honestly wanted to know why it wasn't able to be removed. Life200BC (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You used the term "qualifier" on my talk-page and you were requesting to have the term "fad diet" removed - these were exactly the same things JustANameInUse was requesting before he was blocked. The term "qualifier" was not mentioned on the edits on the Carnivore (disambiguation) article or in any edit summary so you did not see that in any edit there. It was first used by JustANameInUse on the help desk . I find it unlikely you were reading that specific part of the help desk by chance and then would use that specific word in exactly the same way as JustANameInUse. You did not respond to the help desk yesterday so you were not active there at the time. That word has not been used elsewhere on Wikipedia in regard to the carnivore diet yet in the space of a few hours hours you use it after JustANameInUse was blocked? Apologises if I have got this wrong we do live in a strange world and sometimes stuff happens like this, but hopefully you can see why this is very suspicious. I am not sure what to make of this. Sure you could be innocent but there has been too much meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry in regard to the carnivore diet so I personally wouldn't rule anything out especially when two users use the exact same word and leave comments on my talk-page and one is blocked. But I won't respond further to this, it's up to the admins. Take care. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That probably is where I did see it as I was going around Wikipedia. After someone insinuated I was a sockpuppet went searching and ended up their. So yeah that is where I saw the word not the actual edit. I was looking at it and went the disambiguation page and saw your were reverting so asked you. Sorry for any confusion around this. I won't randomly go around wikipedia and then going and ask question without thinking about it. In retrospect, it does seem a little suspicious, but I assure you I have no relation to those accounts and any bad things they may have done on wikipedia. Life200BC (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Reading through most of this, and the related Zalgo SPI, I don't see any strong reason to suspect Life200BC of socking. Sure, the use of the phrase "fad qualifier" is unusual, but not enough to hang a sock tag on.   blocked JustANameInUse as a possible sock of BecomeFree, who in turn is cu-confirmed to Zalgo, and that I'd believe.  But, Life200BC has been around for a while, predating Zalgo's recent socking spree by almost a year.  I was going to drop uw-agf-sock on them, but they're already aware of this SPI, so no need for a formal notice.  Vegan diets are a topic which engender much passion, so it's not surprising many people would be interested in this topic, especially if there's been reddit canvassing going on.  Closing with no action taken at this time. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the IP, probably dynamic, and quiet for 5 days, so I don't see any point in doing anthing there. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I revoked talk page access. is the original blocking admin, the one who believes this is a probable sock. I agree with JzG in this case; my statement is not based on checkuser evidence. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)