Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedantisch/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All three users have only ever edited Yuval Peres. Two have similar naming schemes (word+2 digit number). Two seem precociously knowledgeable of WP policies, citing them in edit summaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuval_Peres&oldid=905354390, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuval_Peres&oldid=905320708). Eigenbra (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2019 (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

 * - Probably worth a check. The SandDoctor  Talk 23:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus:
 * . Please move to Pedantisch.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, closing. GABgab 01:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * . Please move to Pedantisch.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, closing. GABgab 01:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, closing. GABgab 01:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Only contirubution in Yuval Peres and precocious citing of WP policies. Both behaviors same as previous sockpuppets. Eigenbra (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2019 (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
❌, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same behavior as before (new users removing the same material from Yuval Peres with the same justifications as the previous socks) David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, here are the requested diffs, in which these editors all perform the same content removal.
 * Lebesguedandy: (editor only has five edits)
 * DouadySet:  (note that the first diff is the editor's first edit)
 * Coloradomountain: (editor only has 11 edits)
 * Related diffs from previously listed parties:
 * Megamoke (previously listed as unrelated): (this editor's only edit)
 * Yorkshire39 (confirmed):  (this editor's only two edits)
 * Algebra44 (confirmed): (this editor's only edit)
 * Wonderwikiab (confirmed): (one of only two edits by this editor)
 * Pedantisch (confirmed sockmaster):
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Was I supposed to remove the cuhold or is that one of those things that only cus and clerks are allowed to touch? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Editing behaviour is definitely very similar here, with edit summaries also styled in a similar fashion. With the last SPI case having a similar editor being technically unrelated, while behaviourally similar, I'm wondering if a check is worthwhile here? There's obviously unproductive behaviour here, and meatpuppetry going on if not direct sockpuppetry. Question may be how to address the problem. Putting my mediator hat on, there's been no conversations with the editors either on their user or talk page. If they are unrelated, I'd recommend that as the next step. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 02:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The number of editors all having apparently identical interests is ... intriguing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be a coordinated effort of sorts, possibly, but the question is how to address it, if they're not technically related. Unless it's outright sock puppetry, immediate blocking may not be appropriate here, since the root of this is a content dispute, and no steps have been taken to discuss this at all (nothing on the article talk or user talk pages from what I can see). So I'd recommend that, if these users aren't blocked as sockpuppets. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 02:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, since much of the edit-warring was coming from new users (whether sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or coincidental) I've semiprotected the article. Incidentally, as well as the people named in the SPI (who have taken a pro-Peres editing position) there is another group of single-purpose accounts, less active recently, who initially worked together to add the negative material about Peres to the article: LYYP, Borelborel, Mozartofprobability, and Snpsnp at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An update: This may well be meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry. I've received an email reporting accusations that Peres has been asking his collaborators "to remove the section regarding sexual harassment, because Yuval is planning to apply for academic jobs and wanted to first 'sanitize' his Wikipedia page". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Evidence for each of the suspected puppets in the form of diffs comparing each to diffs of previously blocked socks must be provided.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)