Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Primal Groudon/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

WP:DUCK at Book of Ruth, namely reverting back to what Primal Groudon has been edit-warring. ,, and.

Also, Vaxorian's opinions upon neutrality have been pushed as nauseam by, now WMF-banned. Even if they are not the same person, they are advocating the same POV. See the same POV being pushed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244 by another editor who got indeffed, having the same propensity of indulging into WP:OR of the Bible, namely. Oh, yes, Primal Groudon shares that POV and the propensity for original research of the Bible. If you ask me why, I have written an essay thereupon. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I would annoyed to be accused without reason. But if others have a reason I have to make allowance for their doubting, too. In this case WP:DUCK is a hard, objective fact, whoever you are in real life. So, I have a valid reason for reporting you here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL about my secular extremist worldview. I am neither for nor against the Bible. I am for WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP about the Bible. See e.g. Christ myth theory, where I sided with the real existence of Jesus, or. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

As said to Vaxorian, WP:DUCK is part of our WP:RULES, and there is no doubt that it applies, as seen from the endorsement of this request by a checkuser. Frivolous requests are summarily rejected. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree: even if they are not the same person, they share a POV and a modus operandi. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Just because one account agrees with an edit that another account made does not mean that both accounts are owned by the same person. I think that assuming that it does mean that both accounts share an owner is committing the fallacy of false cause. Another thing that should be noted is that there is only one instance in which this other user has reverted users that have reverted me, and this other user's edit summaries do not mention me nor do they indicate that they were being reverted for reverting me. Similarly, if both accounts were owned by me, it makes no sense as to why this other account's edit to the Book of Ruth was over three weeks after my last edit to my last edit to that article. On a side note, this other user makes reference to me on the talk page of the user that opened the sock puppet investigation. While referencing me, this user does not mention my username. On another note, I do not receive emails relating to this other account, even though every account I own (eg. my Facebook, Twitter, Roblox, and Microsoft account; I do not own more than one Wikipedia account.) has my email address so that site can email me my notifications. Also, prior to this investigation, I was not aware that this other account existed. Primal Groudon (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I do not enjoy being accused of sockpuppetry, but I do enjoy seeing the above banner stating "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack" And I agree, though I personally do not view any ill intents from the accuser, I see this as quite annoying, and irritating. I'm also certain the accused puppeteer will be annoyed if/when he finds out someone accused him of using multiple accounts. Simple IP and Mac Address investigations will likely clear this out in no time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaxorian (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

And just to note for Tgeorgescu (The only one accusing me), having similar opinions as other users across the decade is not evidence. I could likely find hundreds of accounts following your secular extremist worldview, but I would never accuse you of sockpuppetry. Though I understand your report of me, I still see it as absolutely foolish and a waste of both of our time (The only non-renewable, constantly depleting asset) Also, my "opinion on neutrality" has been derived from the Oxford Dictionary, which you admitted to disobeying. You stated that you take sides, and the Oxford Dictionary states that Neutrality is defined as "the state of not supporting either side in a disagreement, competition or war." Vaxorian (talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This other user's edit agreeing with my edit is not an example WP:DUCK. That article says "For example, consider that "User:Example" is engaged in a heated dispute with someone else, and gets blocked because of it. Immediately after, a "User:Example2" registers on Wikipedia and continues the dispute right away, saying the same things and in the same tone. The duck test allows us to consider it an obvious sock-puppet, and act in consequence. " Notice one of the words is "immediately after". "Immediately after" is not the same as "over three weeks after". Also, my edits to the Book of Ruth article are not edit warring. Edit warring, as defined by the template on my talk page, is "repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree." My edits to the Book of Ruth had nothing to do with how I think the page should look. The only reason I reverted the people who reverted me is because my edits were reverted for being original research, when they were not original research at all. Also, the claim that my edits were pushing any POV at all is a complete lie. The claim that my edits were original research is completely false. The claim that "They share a POV" is false as I am not exhibiting any POV at all. Also, there's still the gap of three weeks that can't be explained if both accounts are owned by the same person. Primal Groudon (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * They are technically ❌. Vaxorian, all you need to do is sign your comment. ST47 (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * From a behavioral point of view, there's not enough to go on. I will admit, it raises some eyebrows when a new user's 15th edit is to describe themselves as Bane of Secular Extremists, but I'm just not convinced this is socking.  I'll leave this open; maybe somebody else has another take on this.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)