Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MaximusEditor/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

These three editors, the accounts for which were all created within the past year (MaximusEditor - 10 months old, with 125 edits; Eruditess - 9 months old, with 119 edits; EliteArcher88: 6 months old, with 102 edits), came to my attention on Talk:Turning Point USA and Turning Point USA. Eruditess suggested that the article needed "formatting clean up". EliteArcher88 agreed, there was some discussion, and then MaximusEditor popped up to agree as well. My position was that a clean up was fine, but to avoid whitewashing the article. EliteArcher88 made the edit: she deleted an entire section on the grounds that it wasn't about Turning Point USA per se, but was about the 501(c)(4) created and controlled by Turning Point USA, "Turning Point Action." I reverted as absurd and whitewashing - it was precisely what I warned them against, not "formatting clean up", but blatant removal of pertinent information. In further discussion on the talk page the three editors supported each other and asked me to revert, and I refused, since the material is obvious germane, considering that Charlie Kirk controls both organizations, which may be legally separate, but are not in any way independent.It occurred to me that there was something very similar about all the comments from these three "editors", so I began looking around. I noted that they were all created at around the same time, and had about the same number of edits. I ran an "Editor Interaction Analyser" on the three, which came up with this. Not a slam dunk, but very similar, enough, I think, to allow a CU check. This could well be meatpuppetry, but however it's being coordinated, I cannot see these three editors as unrelated. The talk page discussion is here.Obviously, this arises in the context of a content dispute, but I'm not here because of that, I'm here because it suddenly occurred to me that the three accounts seemed very similar to each other, and were attempting -- through the use of 3 supposedly independent editors -- to create the illusion of consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * At the bottom of this talk page, MaximusEditor and EliteArcher88 use the same writing and formatting style. Both users sought to add puffery to the article (the accomplishments and influence of TPUSA) and are upset that it was reverted. Do you think they could also be related to Mwright1469, who was blocked and suspected of sockpuppetry (and just so happened to edit-war on the TPUSA page months)? The editor was banned months before these other accounts popped up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * May also be worthwhile to check this sockpuppet account who has a history on the TPUSA page. I don't have time to do the legwork on my own right now – earlier today I busted a different network of sockpuppets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Mz7: Thanks for doing the run. Would anyone like to take a stab at the behavioral evidence? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * GN: Thanks, I look forward to your results. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * GeneralNotability: Thanks, I appreciate your taking the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2020 (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

 * - Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * From a technical standpoint, the accounts are ❌. Mz7 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll try to do a behavioral sometime tomorrow. Given that CU came back unrelated, the most likely outcomes are either "probably independent editors" or "might be off-wiki coordination going on but we can't conclusively prove anything." GeneralNotability (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done a behavioral comparison and my conclusion is also "unrelated" (or at least not provably related). Based on writing style, it is probable that the accounts have different people behind the keyboard. The accounts do have several common interests, all of which are in the AMPOL area, but given their common interest in Turning Point that is not especially surprising. There are a number of possible explanations for the shared interest, ranging from "all political conservatives interested in Wikipedia" to "covert coordination," but we don't have evidence to prove anything nefarious is going on and so should favor the more benign explanation. I am closing without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)