Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Novalis69/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( originally filed under this user)

Following some unsuccessful revert warring by at Acupuncture (including some fairly extraordinary edit summaries e.g.) the  account, dormant for 5 years, suddenly comes to their add with additional reverts. Reviewing both accounts' contribution histories there is considerable overlap (for example at Henri Wittmann). Bon courage (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Yup, substantial overlap, see https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=eklir&users=novalis69&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * See the report below. MarioGom (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
After Eklir had edit warred on Acupuncture today, being reverted three times, Novalis69 has twice reverted the article back to Elkir's preferred state. Novalis had only one edit since 2015 until today, but has edited in the past many of the same article as Eklir,. Donald Albury 16:53, 14 April 2023 (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

 * - Given that both accounts do not have that many edits, the long-term topic overlap is surprising (Henri Wittmann, Jews, now this Acupuncture-related incident). MarioGom (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, edit conflicted on that. The gist is they are ✅, but I'm going to let the master's prior 1 week block just run as normal under the hope that they learn they lesson about socking.  There are limits to my largesse, however, and the next time I won't be so soft. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They have been emailing me, maintaining that they are not socking, so I think an indef until they can demonstrate that they can edit constructively is called for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish Well, if they're being deliberately deceptive, feel free to indef them. As far as the technical evidence goes, there's "confirmed" and there's "confirmed".  In this case, there's absolutely no doubt.  If they're saying they're not, they're lying. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I've extended to an indef. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)