Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manwë986/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Manwë986 was recently blocked from Lee Kuan Yew for attempting to overturn consensus on an image they want used in the infobox, following a previous block for edit warring. Consensus have thrice rejected Manwë986's choice of photo.

After the recent block from the page, an IP 202.166.7.42 turned up to once again change the photo, and a warning was issued to the IP and Manwë986, while not directly accusing the latter of the act. Today, a newly-made account Sezze333 once again changed the photo. Pinging as the initial blocking administrator and issuing of the warning when I sought assistance.

I am also aware IPs will not be linked to accounts, and it's here just to provide reference to the Sezze333 account. If both parties are innocent, I will give a full unqualified apology. Seloloving (talk) 21:53, 4 October 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
 
 * I am loathe to act on a new user after just one edit with which to sustain an accusation. However, Sezze333 creates an account and just two minutes later  finds an image that User:Manwë986's been trying to force onto the article for over a year now? This is extremely unlikely. I think the WP:DUCK test just broke the meter. I strongly endorse a checkuser test here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * to compare Manwe986 to Sezze333 for confirmation. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . Different countries, but Sezze333 is using an IP that has been flagged as a possible proxy endpoint; it is possible that they may be attempting deliberately to evade CU detection. Mz7 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there's something questionable going on here, but in the face of the CU results, I don't think there's quite enough evidence to take action. Without spilling any WP:BEANS, I'll just say that the type of CU evasion that Mz7 is referring to really isn't something I'd expect someone to figure out on their first attempt at block evasion, and the proxy flag has a non-trivial chance of being a false positive. Because Sezze333 and the IP have not edited recently and the master is already partially blocked for 6 months, I'm going to close this without action for now. If shenanigans resume on this article, we can revisit the case, hopefully with more data with which to make a decision. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

In the previous report, it was concluded that Sezze333 may be using a proxy to edit to evade the ban on changing the picture on Lee Kuan Yew, and hence was closed with no further action. I had promised to apologise to Manwë986 if the evidence proved his innocence but as it was left vague, I had not done so. I would like to present behavioral evidence that the user is indeed Manwë986.

1. The only user in question before Manwë986's ban is Manwë986 themselves. After Manwë986's ban on 16 September, Sezze333 registers on 5 October and immediately changed the photo within a few minutes of creating their account 1. As the CU failed to find a match, this was deemed to be inconclusive evidence. In addition, an IP had also changed the photo on 1 October, this will be important in point 5.

2. Sezze333 tried reinstating the photo again on 1 November and was reverted by administrator Hammersoft. On 3 November, Sezze333 changed the photo, which they self-reverted before an IP turns up and changed the photo on 4 November. Note the exact same photo description, "Lee, 2002". The self-reverting is notable I will elaborate on in the next point.

3. Manwë986 has self-reverted their change of the photo inexplicably before, not once but twice. While I am unsure of their reasons for this. It's nevertheless a behavioral sign of the user.

4. Manwë986 has sworn never to give up trying to change the photo, even if consensus was against them. All of the changes have been based on "respect", seniority or the perception that a younger photo is somehow a disgrace to the man. Manwë986 has once expressed on my talkpage that the subject is their idol and it's obvious this reverence is a factor in their behavior.

5. Per point 1, I had reported the IP to the original blocking admin Hammersoft, noting the behaviour that someone innocent would have simply changed the photo and year, and not add the full name. See IP edit and Manwë986's edit. This incident happened on 1 October and a warning was issued to Manwë986 of logged out editing. Ever since Sezze333's appearance on 5 October, they have been very careful not to make the same mistake.

6. Not even an hour after this report was filed, a new account Blossoming09 is registered and their first edit is immediately to change the photo again.

Per the WP:QUACKING behaviour, I am requesting for a behavioral investigation into Sezze333 and Manwë986. As the previous CU had proved pointless if they are on a proxy, I will notify both of this investigation to allow them to give their side of the story. Pinging per the original blocking admin and, the original CheckUser. Hammersoft, I sincerely apologise for again involving you in this matter. Seloloving (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Added Nevillesflower, who is also into updating the photo, and from their edit history, looks like a sleeper that just got warmed up to autoconfirmed. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 6 November 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

 * A prior report on Sezze333 was inconclusive (see archive). I didn't want to block after just one edit then, but the WP:DUCK evidence is enough on this one now. On Blossoming09, I've not blocked; there's just the one edit. I think at this point we're playing a game of Whac-A-Mole. As a result, I've semi-protected the article for a period of a month. If the problem resumes after that, I'll protect for longer. Eventually, this person will get bored and move on. Seloloving, thank you for your analysis! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the assistance, Hammersoft. I will continue to monitor the situation and update you as required. Your intervention is much appreciated. Seloloving (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I ran a check to see if CU would be more useful. Results:
 * and are probably using a VPN.
 * and have more technical similarities than to.
 * Overall, I'd say these results are but would note that the two accounts in this report are closer to technically possible than unrelated even with the proxy use taken into account. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I re-ran Dreamy's checks, with Nevillesflower added in. There's a metric ton of proxying going on, so I agree with the  call.  I think it's pretty clear that there's a concerted effort to groom the photo in this article, but I don't see enough to feel comfortable putting my signature on a block.  I see that Lee Kuan Yew has already been protected, so that should at least stop the immediate problem.  Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)