Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notagainst/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

(Update: it seems there are additional, older sock accounts and complaints were made about them on the user's talk page before the suspected sock Pinklydo existed. I have added material on one likely sock account Friggenfright, an SPA for the Peter Ellis page actively edited by the other two accounts, in parenthesis below.)

Same distinctive set of topics (e.g., New Zealand/Australia related; climate change activism, Greta Thunberg, Bushfires in Australia and their climate impact; POV anti-Trump edits at Kayleigh McEnany and Jared Kushner) ;

Same pattern of fixating on one article, making a flurry of edits and opinionated, inflexible talk page disputations (in some cases taking over the entire article) rather than lightly editing a random variety of articles;

Same combative style, edit warring and control through reverts ("must justify edit") and edit explanations so over-the-top as to suggest deliberate trolling;

Rewriting each other's talk page edits without signature or other indication, edits are 40 minutes apart. (The same pattern is seen with another likely sock, Friggenfright, edits 35 minutes apart, with the sock account retired after someone posted about this on the master account's talk page).

Rewriting each other's article edits, edits are 30 minutes apart;

Same unusual "indented contradicting !vote" reply style in their comments in the same talk page discussion about the sock's disruptive edits.

The apparent sockpuppet "Pinklydo" is used, among other purposes, to evade Notagainst's topic ban on climate change which Notagainst also violated directly.

Generally the disruptive style most recently seen in Pinklydo's trollishly anti-Trump edits at Kayleigh McEnany and its talk page is identical to the behavior described as the premise for the topic ban.

From the timestamps it looks like lately the user runs two simultaneous sessions with the two accounts and does tag-team edits at roughly the same time.

This seems a rather clear case with the only unclear thing (to me) being whether it is done for comedic trolling or reflects a genuinely out of control disruptive user. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' It appears that the both the user Notagainst and the user Pinklydo appear to both be editing in various articles to do with politics, for example significant changes on the page Kayleigh McEnany and various other articles. As stated before, it appears that the user's anti-Trump edits are present on both the accounts mentioned earlier. They are also editing each others' talk page posts, within 30 minutes typically, and if they were different people, why would the consistently follow one another, through these political American pages, attempting to back up their points by fraudulently having another user comment positively on them, in the same manner as the other user. It is obvious that the two accounts were set up by the same user (probably), but Pinklyo's more recent edits seem to be those backing anti-Trump statements on the page Kayleigh McEnany, so it seems that the two different accounts were both backing each other's edits regarding climate change, although now it seems that the account Pinklydo is now used instead to solely back Notagainst's anti-Trump statements on the page Kayleigh McEnany. So it seems that Notagainst in fact is against Donald Trump (unlike what his name says)! Overall, from the evidence, there is most probably a sockmaster controlling both of these accounts. XLK123 (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, it appears that because the suspicions have been raised, Notagainst has had some involvement with the Arbitration Committee, attempting to deny the accusations that he/she is facing. I just noticed that Notagainst also welcomed Pinklydo to Wikipedia extremely swiftly, as though he somehow knew that the user was coming, and as they say: BIG givaway. XLK123 (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Like in the climate change Arbitration enforcement case, NotAgainst (& co) have become inactive for a while after this was filed. Yesterday Pinklydo started editing after an unusual 11-day break without responding to sockpuppet concerns. Not sure whether there is an expectation here to respond, but it does point towards a similar behaviour as before. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All three accounts were pinged in a message left on Notagainst's talk page when this investigation was posted, so the normally very argumentative Pinklydo is aware but quiet. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Notagainst and Pinklydo are ✅ to each other in addition to . Friggenfright is . Based on this and the behaviour I've tagged and blocked the two socks indef and warned the master. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I strongly suspect Yaklib is a sockpuppet of Notagainst. Both accounts push an alarmist POV on climate change, using similar language and strategies. Notagainst was previously topic-banned from climate change for six months, and this account would allow them to avoid scrutiny.


 * Both accounts fixate on a high-profile CC article, rather than editing a wider variety of articles. They overhaul these in big sweeps. (climate crisis and effects of climate change for NA, tipping points in the climate system for Yaklib).
 * Both accounts have a tendency to misrepresent sources. While this isn't that rare, one type of error stands out. Both accounts make weird mistakes in in-text attribution. For instance, Yaklib here attributes a statement to the National Academies of Sciences, because it was published in PNAS, a journal published by the National Academies. Also . Compare with and.
 * Both describe difficult/jargonny text as waffle vs
 * Citations are formatted similarly vs

There are a few more similarities (stylistic and other), which I'm reluctant to detail, as I'm afraid to spill WP:BEANS. Previously, Notagainst accounts have used different EngVars ( vs ), indicating they are actively trying to avoid detection.

I'm requesting CU as I think this falls under the 'complex case' criterion, and because a previous CU found an additional account, so there may be sleepers. Hope it isn't stale yet. Femke (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Femkemilene a good tool to install is User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/cuStaleness.js. It will annotate a SPI page with (mostly accurate) evaluations of whether an account is stale. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 26 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

 * Yaklib is technically stale, but based on some clues from the logs, I'm calling them to both Pinklydo and Friggenfright in the archive.   -- RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd be interested in hearing about the additional behavioural evidence you mentioned. You can send me an email if you'd rather not post the details publicly. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do. Femke (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, between the CU results, behavioural evidence (the citation thing is particularly distinctive), and timecards, I am convinced that this is the same person. While Notagainst's 6 month TBAN from climate change has now expired, using an undisclosed account to edit a topic area they were previously banned from is a clear violation of WP:SCRUTINY and WP:CLEANSTART ("Even if the original account is not under a formal editing restriction, changing accounts hides the editor's past relationship to the disputing parties, and interferes with the community's ability to monitor the dispute. It is not an appropriate use of clean start to resume editing contentious or scrutinized topics with a new account.").  - please indef Yaklib and Notagainst. I am aware the master account hasn't edited in a while, but this is their second instance of sockpuppetry and they received a final warning in the last case. Thanks,  Spicy (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have -- TNT (talk • she/they) 20:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tagged, closing. Spicy (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)