Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My very best wishes/Archive

27 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The subject matter of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) article is extremely contentious; RGloucester has recently referred this matter to ARBCOM. In October, an obvious SPA started making edits to this article. I quickly called him out as an SPA in my edit summaries and on the article's Talk page. There were one or two objections to my calling Tlsandy an SPA by other editors, but Tlsandy himself never responded to my charge, and since then, I have regularly called Tlsandy an SPA without anyone raising any protests. Of course, I immediately wondered if Tlsandy is a sock puppet, but I couldn't come up with any suspects. What has changed is that Tlsandy made an edit to the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine  article and two comments on that article's Talk page, all pushing the idea of a "stealth invasion". There is a "stealth invasion" section on that article's Talk page. The only editors who edit the MH17 article who made comments in that Talk section are My very best wishes and Tlsandy. This is what singles out My very best wishes as a suspect for being the editor running this sock puppet. In this edit, My very best wishes replies to Tlsandy, agreeing with him.

There has also been tag teaming between My very best wishes and Tlsandy in the MH17 article.

My very best wishes, 15:18, 2 December 2014‎ Tlsandy, 15:54, 2 December 2014‎ Tlsandy, 13:16, 3 November 2014‎ My very best wishes, 20:11, 3 November 2014‎

Finally, this is utterly subjective and so in no way does it constitute evidence, but the "voices" of My very best wishes and Tlsandy sound the same to me.

As for what I need to say since I have asked for the employment of Checkuser. I cannot "explain how [I] know the accounts belong to one person" because I do not know this. I merely suspect it. To understand how "the accounts are being used abusively", you merely need to consider RGloucester's ARBCOM referral, which I linked to above. This article is a vipers' nest of battleground behavior, and these two accounts are a significant part of the problem. As for whether "CheckUser evidence is needed": it would be nice to establish a fact of the matter about whether sockpuppetry is going on here, and I don't see how that can be done without Checkuser. Herzen (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked through the edit summaries of My very best wishes and Tlsandy, and it appears that the English of the former is better and his summaries are less cryptic. Tlsandy shows all the signs of being a sock puppet, but unfortunately I cannot suggest any other possibilities for who might be running him. Despite his small number of edits, Tlsandy plays a significant role in the battleground that is the MH17 article, by tag teaming in edit wars with other editors who want the article to stay as it is. Tlsandy's edits almost exclusively involve aggressive reverts of edits which attempt to improve NPOV in the article. And because of the battleground atmosphere, other editors are happy to have him there, even though SPAs undermine and corrupt the process of building an encyclopedia.

My very best wishes has made several baffling edits on my Talk page demanding me to revert a totally neutral edit. See this section in the Talk page of the article.. Is that not disruptive and hence a problem? And My very best wishes has harassed RGloucester on the latter's Talk page for bringing a case to ARBCOM. – Herzen (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * No, this is not me. Yes, I can see that she/he followed my edits (which I do not mind), but this is all. I do not have a slightest idea who that might be. My very best wishes (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not mind requesting a checkuser myself (because this is not me), however this involves privacy of another person (Tlsandy), so this should be decided by patrolling admin and checkuser. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what they were doing here, but this is a kind of edit (broken syntaxis) I do not even know how to make. Not mentioning I never edited radio stations in Britain. Tlsandy must have specific technical knowledge about this . That might be User:Robert Williams who edits similar pages and breaks syntaxis in a similar way: . My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know if its the place to comment  about herzens perception of which editors are  a 'problem' at articles but I find his  assertion that My very best wishes is a significant part of the problem, grotesque, an utter distortion, and he speaks for himself merely , in my opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Herzen - that issue about you linking to the rianovosti article? - that is so trivial - you call that him harassing you ? - and  disagreeing with rgloucester about this arbcom case request and saying so - politely - at his talk page isn't harassment - I don't see things like you at all - its like you telling me pussy riot aren't proper Russians - I dont agree with you about stuff. Sayerslle (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The "voice" is something we regularly use to work out if two accounts are the same person, look for how they use edit summaries, and punctuation, the synonym they use to refer to other people and things. If you can find some of that evidence and add it your section above it might be helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Checkuser comments: Not seeing enough evidence here to carry out any checks. There appear to be rather obvious differences in behaviour and thus CU is .  Risker (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are some striking similarities, but there are also striking differences. Overall, I have to agree that the evidence is not sufficient to justify taking any action, so I am closing this investigation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

29 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Talk:Race_(biology) sees tendentious denial by My_very_best_wishes that that the mainstream science dictionary cited is a valid, verified source (i.e., the user is effectively claiming that the person who cited it is lying about what it said), but refuses to do anything to obtain and verify the source personally, just repeatedly insists on deletion because it's supposedly not "verified". Multiple other editors disagree, on the basis of WP:V ("verifi" not "verifi") and WP:AGF; there is no basis provided by My_very_best_wishes on which to doubt the source or the citation. Shortly after this failure to gain consensus for deleting the material and citation in question, along comes 222.108.120.95 and deletes the citation from Race (biology) with an edit summary of "unverified reference", for which the anon was blocked (also after pointy, disruptive editing at the related page Talk:Race_and_genetics . Seems more than suspicious. All of the pages within the ambit of WP:ARBR&I are subject to frequent sockpuppetry and trolling. It's most often blamed on Mikemikev, but I'm skeptical that it's all one user.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Not long after My_very_best_wishes left me a WP:POINTy warning about WP:ACDS relating to Talk:Race_(biology) after I was the one who added an ACDS notice to that talk page to begin with (with an edit summary relating to the trolling that's being going on there), MVBW then responded here. Then all of a sudden 115.92.221.62 shows up to vandalize my talk page, venting about that same article and about my use of the word "troll". While there was someone ID'd at least tentatively as a Mikemikev sock trolling that page a week or so ago, this timing seem rather "convenient".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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


 * @SMcCandlish. When you submit an SPI request about someone next time, please provide some evidence that links two accounts (none of the edits by other accounts above have anything in common with my edits or my argumentation). In addition, I do not see my editing on this page as problematic (unlike edits by some other accounts). I only asked to clarify quotation on this article talk page (and still did not receive answer), and I did not edit this page during last 10 days. I am also not at all active in the subject area covered by discretionary sanctions on the human races and intelligence. In particular, I never talked about human races while taking part in discussion on page Race (biology). My very best wishes (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You do quite a bit more (in the WP:IDHT vein) at that page than "only asked to clarify [a] quotation", and I already showed how the first anon's deletion directly attempts implement to your own frustrated demands for removal of exactly the same citation. That seems sufficient, to look into it. Or maybe you have a anonymous fan club stalking your edits to obscure talk pages, and forcibly implementing the proposals you don't get consensus for, and vandalizing the talk pages of your opponents? Either way, something untoward is going on, and maybe this SPI case will exonerate you and find that someone else is behind it and making it look like you. That's why this is called "sockpuppet investigations" not "sockpuppet blocks without bothering with any investigation".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did not you ask me before filing this SPI request? Of course this is not me. All these IPs have a geographic location very different from my geographic location. As about my notification on your talk page, this is not vandalizing your page, but a formal requirement by ArbCom. This notice does not imply any guilt - as explained in the notice. If you think my notification was not appropriate, please rise this matter on a proper noticeboard, not here. P.S. Yes, I talked with Mikemikev just before he was banned in the project, but I do not know much about his socking later because I am not generally active in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Both IPs are blocked now. I;m afraid we have no way to prove that those two IPs belong to My very best wishes. CheckUsers are prevented to compare named accounts with anonymous IPs (see: WP:Checkuser). And, behavioral evidence is simply not strong enough. I'm closing this case now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

07 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:My very best wishes initiated a report on me on the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. He was also supported there by User:DrFleischman. Nine minutes after I proved in the discussion, that their accusations are groundless, an IP User 2601:84:4601:d750:c0e5:47ee:1d7c:5e3d began to vandalise the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page, blanking our discussion from there for nine times:          , until this IP was blocked for vandalism for 31 hours. Before being blocked, this IP User also blanked information from my User page   and my Archive . I suspect User:My very best wishes logged out from his account and made these actions from his IP. But I also admit that it could have been User:DrFleischman. Would you be so kind to check whether any of these users are using the above mentioned IP address? Thank you. Daniel (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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


 * This is ridicoulous. Of course this is not me, and I have no idea who that user might be. Never talked with them and never communicated with them, on-wiki or off-wiki. I can not exclude that the IP was actually user Potorochin himself or his friend(s) for the following reasons. (1) They claimed "updating my user page" here (edit summary). (2) They removed 3RR complaint that Potorochin did not want to be. (3) That was a good reason for user Pororochin to show his good will and ... to file this report in retaliation to my 3RR report , (4) filing this SPI report makes sanctions for Potorchin on 3RR significantly less likely. As a note of order, I never interacted with user Potorochin in this project prior to filing 3RR about him. My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have been fingered in an SPI because I agreed with another editor. Quelle horreur! I have learned my lesson for agreeing with my fellow editors! ;p If you look at the edit history of WP:ANEW it's quite clear that I arrived there before My very best wishes did (diffs here, here) to address a completely unrelated dispute. I have never had any prior contact with Potorochin/Daniel, My very best wishes, or that IP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * already. The report, as I see it, doesn't try to establish any link between and, but instead alleges that the IPv6 address was used by either user while logged-out to perform vandalism and avoid scrutiny. CUs do not typically accept to investigate or reveal the IP addresses of logged-in users (per the Privacy Policy), and in this case, I don't see evidence compelling enough to conclude that either named long-term experienced user was beyond reasonable doubt behind the IP edits. I'm closing this case with no further action since the IP is already blocked for its vandalism. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

There has been removal of sourced academic content under false pretenses And it has been reported. Another user picked up on the POV Pushing that was happening and reverted the edit, now an IP that has not been active all of a Sudden starts reverting back to the POV edits. Jack90s15 (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The user who removed the Pov pushing Jack90s15 (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=916985657&oldid=916890225

Then I Restored it back to that edit then the IP reverts back to the pov edit Jack90s15 (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&action=history

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * No, that was not me. This IP may belong either to other contributors who recently edited this page or to someone who saw the requests at the ANI and AE. The latter is more likely. My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Retaliatory filing. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)