Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NedFausa/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The NedFausa account was started on December 13, 2019. Since then, the user amassed 715 edits (as of this writing) but a very quick knowledge (even at the account's beginning) of Wikipedia's structure and policies. During the current and ongoing Asexuality mess, the NedFausa account worked in conjuction with the 165.120 IP account. Their speaking style and the fact the never edited at exactly the same time seems to me the two are connected. Also, the two share the same bias towards Asexual people. I believe the NedFausa account and the IP account are obvious socks of an already blocked account. I am requesting an SPI for this or just for behavior. Thank you.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 06:18 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

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

As far as I'm concerned, I have no objection to anyone trying to establish a link between this dynamic IP which geolocates to the UK (though this is rather off-target with a specific location, as is common with UK IPs) and NedFausa, who seems from their user page to be US-based. As for allegations of bias against asexual people (which would seem rather off-topic for a SPI), I'm not biased against anything except people insisting on placing unequivocal assertions regarding living individuals' sexuality into biographies sourced to ambiguous comments posted on Twitter. A 'bias' which if shared by NedFausa and myself, would appear to be one firmly founded in Wikipedia policy.

For the record, if anyone asks, no, I'm not NedFausa. I am however someone who has been editing Wikipedia for something like a decade. For some time I did so with a registered account (which I won't disclose publicly here, though under appropriate circumstances I might consider doing so privately). Having lost the password to that account, and wishing to cut back my involvement (it becoming something of an addiction) I now only edit occasionally, and do so, as Wikipedia policy permits, using an IP which my ISP regularly chooses to reset. I consider that my arguments should stand on their own merits, and ask only that they be judged accordingly. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Without diffs this isn't going anywhere, checkusers will not connect an IP to an account, so all such blocks must be behaviorally based backed by appropriate diffs. In fact even with registered accounts it is still behavior that is the main determining factor, the technical match just provides additional confirmation. Even if you were trying to link two registered accounts based on the evidence above, I think a checkuser would decline based on the paucity of the provided evidence. As a secondary point there is no policy against long-term IP editing, while most of us are committed anons who still believe in a free and open internet that anyone can use without registration, it is at least conceivable that a newly registered account is nonetheless quite experienced, an unusual transition to be sure but hardly an impossible one, so behavioral evidence is an absolute necessity. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * User:Neutralhomer, you've been here 13 years; you both that checkusers will never connect an account to an IP, and that SPI requests that fail to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected (direct cut-and-paste from the instructions at the top of this page) will be immediately closed without action. What exactly are you requesting here? &#8209; Iridescent 08:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Insufficient evidence. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below GeneralNotability (talk) 00:02, 22 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

 * Based on strong subject matter interest overlap between Basketcase and NedFausa, I opted to run a check. I would call Basketcase to NedFausa based on CU log data. Behaviorally, there's the aforementioned topic overlap as well as some particular aspects of their edit summaries that I consider distinctive. Given the above,, no TPA no email per the block on Ned. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)