Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lkr3515/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Master account has been almost pure SPA for Voice stress analysis (VSA) article (including edits at Lie detection since July 2014, and this editor is very positive about the technology. In September 2016 another account opened that is quite skeptical of VSA; the master ended up getting blocked for 31 hours for edit warring that month.  Master account has hardly ever used talk but this is an example: Stringfellows, the Ukrainian journal you are referring to is a Russian copy of the actual study that I have listed. I recommend you view the study I have listed as you will see that the Ukrainian journal did not do the study. as is this: A: Stringfellows, you are confused about which document is the original. The Russian Language copy is just that, a Russian copy of the original document which was done first in English. I know this because I knew Professor Chapman when he was alive and conversed with him numerous times before his study was published. You are obviously jaded to voice stress and are therefore allowing it to affect your ability to read and understand written text. It is also obvious that trying to convince someone who is ignorant about what the truth is, is like giving medicine to the dead... one can expect no change. Refers constantly to Chapman in edit notes, diff, diff, diff.

TN7742 account opened January 30 2017 and is 100% SPA. 1st edits were at Talk:VSA (diff - shows same depth of knowledge of field as master: This article is highly biased and lacking many credible sources. For example, the Chapman report is mentioned but the link leads to a source which isn't even in English. The study in question is a key piece of scientific evidence in support of VSA:  ... This article is heavily biased towards VSA. All references to quality studies published in peer reviewed journals are deleted, and obscure references for Indian and Ukranian journals are listed. How to make this more balanced without one used simply deleting everything? One other flaw I would like to point out: The last section references some Guardian articles about VSA, but it is talking about the Nemesyco system, which is different. In fact, their website specifically states that they are NOT affiliated with VSA:  Therefore, it is faulty and inaccurate to use Nemesyco as an example in this article. Has restored content originally created by master that was deleted, like this.

Azar8991's first edit was Feb 8 2017, 1st edit was seeking page protection for VSA article. All edits are either seeking PP or at VSA article. Has restored content originally created by master, like this.

Am pretty sure these 3 are same person. Similar usernames as well. Requesting CU to make sure and in case there are sleepers. If you don't feel CU is necessary, OK by me. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am working on the requested diffs. Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am about halfway through building detailed diffs. So much going on in WP.  Sorry for the delay. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK< sorry I didn't get back to this timely. I will file a new case when I get back to it. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 20 July 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

 * - Seems almost too quacky. I would say an admin could block on discretion and observation but let's not step on any toes and go the fool-proof way. Either way, the accounts seem to be on the verge of COI blocks sooner or later.  QEDK  ( 愛 ) 20:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The suspected sock accounts appear to be ❌ to each other. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - You've given me a lot of similar edits, but can you give diff-by-diffs comparison for each similar edit made from these accounts as such is direly lacking. I've established the accounts are solely SPAs but that doesn't rule out their (apparent) constructiveness (or whatever it is).   QEDK  ( 愛 ) 20:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Last note before I close the case. I think the evidence is not pointing to a conclusion I had previously drawn but any parallels might exist.  QEDK ( 愛 ) 15:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - On hold for 5 days, pending behavioural block and/or close.  QEDK  ( 愛 ) 18:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to keep this open any longer. Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)