Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PapaTakaro/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
See below. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Just to note that several of the sock accounts had no edits. The few main socks all had an over 99% retention rate. The sock made at least one tag-team edit at an RfD, which I personally see as their main major WikiSin, and if not for that I'd lobby for a forgivness one-account reinstatement. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Filing this for the record because my recent block of Moops seems to have generated some attention. This is a string of accounts with a strong interest in gun policy and libertarian politics; the more "invested" accounts (Th78blue, Moops, Pulpfiction621, Firefly115) build large edit counts with "non-content" edits (gnoming, antivandalism), but are quite narrowly focused on these issues in their content contributions. This included instances of apparent illegitimate coordination, which led to a fellow CU blocking Th78blue and Pulpfiction621 last year.

CU evidence additionally strongly supports that
 * 1) Th78blue was evading a block on a cluster of accounts surrounding PapaTakaro
 * 2) Th78blue evaded their block as Moops
 * 3) * For these, see also
 * 4) Pulpfiction621 evaded their block as Firefly115

In other words:


 * (Very) (Group 1):
 * (Very) (Group 2):
 * Groups 1 and 2 are, but strike me as somewhat more consistent with coordination than with direct socking. Always hard to be certain, though. Because the two groups are behaviourally hard to separate, I'm tagging them all as one cluster; Pulpfiction and Firefly as suspected, the others as proven.
 * (Very) (Group 2):
 * Groups 1 and 2 are, but strike me as somewhat more consistent with coordination than with direct socking. Always hard to be certain, though. Because the two groups are behaviourally hard to separate, I'm tagging them all as one cluster; Pulpfiction and Firefly as suspected, the others as proven.
 * (Very) (Group 2):
 * Groups 1 and 2 are, but strike me as somewhat more consistent with coordination than with direct socking. Always hard to be certain, though. Because the two groups are behaviourally hard to separate, I'm tagging them all as one cluster; Pulpfiction and Firefly as suspected, the others as proven.
 * (Very) (Group 2):
 * Groups 1 and 2 are, but strike me as somewhat more consistent with coordination than with direct socking. Always hard to be certain, though. Because the two groups are behaviourally hard to separate, I'm tagging them all as one cluster; Pulpfiction and Firefly as suspected, the others as proven.
 * Groups 1 and 2 are, but strike me as somewhat more consistent with coordination than with direct socking. Always hard to be certain, though. Because the two groups are behaviourally hard to separate, I'm tagging them all as one cluster; Pulpfiction and Firefly as suspected, the others as proven.
 * Groups 1 and 2 are, but strike me as somewhat more consistent with coordination than with direct socking. Always hard to be certain, though. Because the two groups are behaviourally hard to separate, I'm tagging them all as one cluster; Pulpfiction and Firefly as suspected, the others as proven.
 * Groups 1 and 2 are, but strike me as somewhat more consistent with coordination than with direct socking. Always hard to be certain, though. Because the two groups are behaviourally hard to separate, I'm tagging them all as one cluster; Pulpfiction and Firefly as suspected, the others as proven.

Finally, I will note in light of recent discussions about potential UPE editing by Moops that these accounts don't strike me as consistent with common UPE patterns. There may well be bias regarding certain topics, but given the topical consistency and fairly narrow focus, it would seem more likely to me that the motiviation is of a personal or ideological – and not of a financial – nature.

A more extensive behavioural and technical documentation is available to other checkusers on the private wiki. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)