Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MosMusy/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I can't believe this has happened, 7 users 6 of which are extended-protected confirmed, and 3 of which inactive since 6 months. Appeared in a span of couple of minutes to make the exact same arguments at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict talk page and exact reverts. Looks like a WP:DUCK. Shocked how people are able to manage such accounts, if it is (IMO %1,000,000 a duck). Resapp (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Resapp (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

First sock, inactive since February, makes an edit on removing PKK involvement at 19:45

Second sock, inactive for 9 days, makes an argument at talk on removing PKK involvement at 19:43

Third sock, inactive since February, makes an argument at talk on removing PKK involvement at 19:08

Fourth sock, active user, makes an argument at talk on removing PKK involvement at 19:41

Fifth sock, inactive since August, makes an edit regarding belligerents similar to rest at 19:51

Two more Extended confirmed socks have appeared since this request

Sixth sock,active user, makes makes an edit regarding belligerents similar to rest at 20:01

Seventh sock, active user, makes an edit regarding belligerents similar to rest, (exact copy of sixth sock)

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

Call me a sock all you want. Have you not considered multiple people were aware of the same issue on Wikipedia. This is a highly-talked about conflict and how it is represented on here is important to many people. However, editing on Wikipedia has rules and I came to make an argument. I have not ran any other account on here since 2015 and I do not remember the details on that account. The only other edit I made was sometime in 2017-2018, off no account. I made this account to respond to an obvious error that was brought to my attention on Reddit. I then used it again to respond to what I perceive as another error that I saw on Twitter. Feel free to check IP logs or anything of the sorts. Under ordinary circumstances, you can use WP:DUCK, however, this is a highly publicized conflict with many people who aren't seasoned Wiki experts coming here to describe a more accurate version of the conflict. I saw a screenshot of this wikipedia article on Twitter. That is why I came here, that post has many likes and tweets, so it is possible the other "socks, (where with you completely ignoring WP:AGF) came here for identical reasons. You may be against that, but argue within the confines of the facts and established standards on Wikipedia, rather than calling me a "sock" account. Dvtch (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding to the above comment, the fact that there are many new users who came to focus on this specific topic due to its highly publicized nature isn't enough for you to accuse all of them of being sockpuppets. Heck, I don't mean any disrespect, but you are one of these new single-purpose accounts who came to focus on this topic, so these accusations are quite ironic. Lightspecs (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The only Sockpuppet here is User:Resapp Curent Investigation.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you both are trolling or just don't care at this point. 3 of the suspected socks presenting the same argument made their first edits in 6 months literally 2 and 3 minutes after another. Contributes: Resapp (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Multiple editors having a similar point of view is not sockpuppetry, and it's natural that multiple editors would show up at the talk page for a contentious current event if they felt strongly about that event. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Umm did you check the contributes of the users? And did you not see that 3 of the suspected users presenting the same argument made their first edits in 6 months literally 2 and 3 minutes after another? Contributes: Resapp (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Last clerk obviously did not inspect this in detail. 3 of the suspected users presenting the same argument made their first edits in 6 months literally 2 and 3 minutes after another? Contributes: Resapp (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Resapp (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did provide new evidence did you take a look at this? 3 of the suspected users presenting the same argument made their first edits in 6 months literally 2 and 3 minutes after another? Contributes: All you have to do is just click on the three contributes, its really not that hard. Resapp (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Pretty cool to see how you can be accused with sockpuppetry without even being notified. If you bothered to look at my contributions before these last days even for a couple of minutes, you would hardly find anything related to Armenia or Azerbaijan (let alone the conflict in Artsakh). Also, adding one single flag template doesn't seem like the most flawless proof to me. Super  Ψ   Dro  16:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was accused of being one too even though this is the only account that I have and I have had it since 2009 or so. When the account accusing all of us of being sockpuppets was confirmed as being one and banned.--Preservedmoose (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * refiling the SAME SPI against the same users when you were told yesterday that your argument did not hold up by a clerk (and an admin clerk, at that) you decided to refile a second disruptive case with the same non-evidence. Do not do this again or you risk being blocked. Praxidicae (talk) 14:08, 1 O:ctober 2020 (UTC)
 * The case is closed, I will say it once more, if you continue to refile and attempt to reopen or relitigate this case, you will be blocked for disruption. You have two experienced clerks telling you the evidence doesn't hold up. Move on. Praxidicae (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( originally filed under this user)


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

The user has registered after this discussion and voted to it with only saying "Sources are independent and accurate". According to Sockpuppetry, that's an inappropiate usage of alternative accounts. "Posing as a neutral or uninvolved commentator: Using an alternative account to participate in a discussion about another account operated by the same person." Ahmetlii (talk) 09:45, 31 October 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

 * - Highly likely to be WP:MEAT/WP:SOCK.  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 17:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and are ✅ to each other, and are ✅ from .    Maxim (talk)  01:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving to master, MosMusy.  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 08:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Master blocked for 1 month, socks indeffed.  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 08:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , You tagged the master; was that your intention, given the short-term block? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally tag all accounts, even if blocking for a short while, they can remove it themselves once the block duration is up anyway. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 20:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally tag all accounts, even if blocking for a short while, they can remove it themselves once the block duration is up anyway. -- qedk ( t  愛  c ) 20:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same conflict of interest with same editing pattern and a newly signed-in user. I suspect there's a planned sockpuppetting with previously opened accounts or IPs although I always assume good faith for all of the new Wikipedians. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * From suspected sockpuppet: Special:Diff/985071801 and Special:Diff/987174314. From sockpuppeteer's other accounts: I provided my evidence in this discussion before, but for a permanent link: see Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war. The user's sockpuppets are doing the same thing by edit warring and disrupting discussions by using "sleeper" sockpuppets or new accounts (and also not giving responds to after-discussions).--Ahmetlii (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, and . Thank you for assuming good faith for the new Wikipedians, but I am an editor in Armenian Wikipedia since 2015.
 * 1)Regarding the Special:Diff/985071801, I and another user have already discussed my edits on the talk page of that article.
 * 2)I don't get the problem in this diff Special:Diff/987174314? I did not participate RfC, I just added a comment.
 * 3), I want to ask which discussion do you mean where I haven't responded? --E badalyan (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, the sockpuppeteer's puppets are not responding to any investigations and generally using IPs or newly registered accounts (or one-edit-made accounts) for disrupting discussions. Thanks so much for responding.Ahmetlii (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * GeneralNotability (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They appear to have a similar POV to the sockmaster, but I don't see anything that conclusively links E badalyan to them. I'm opting to close without action, though I have given E badalyan a discretionary sanctions notice for the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Very similar username to previous sock, at the same article makes the same WP:SEALION arguments about data/evidence and quoting WP:Scholarship, and has the same interest in the Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict. Crossroads -talk- 06:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

also suspects Gregathon is Greglawl for the same reasons: Crossroads -talk- 20:48, 27 January 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

 * . Same geographic city as Greglawl, but no conclusive connection from a technical standpoint. Mz7 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Behavior is quite clear on Talk:Sexism. At Talk:Sexism/Archive_19, Greglawl links a Google Doc with the author as "P, O" and that same person is on the Google Doc linked here by Gregathon. Same topic, same specific line being contest. This is WP:DUCK block.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)