Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Primus Sanctus Don Bosco/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

From Feb. 19 to 22, began making widespread edits to Catholic prelates and cathedrals, including introducing multiple pre-nominals/titles throughout and with styles and naming that did not appear consistent with guidelines at WikiProject_Catholicism. Some of the edits added post-nominals without citing sources. Multiple editors attempted to communicate via the editor's talk page, article talk pages, edit summaries, and even by inserting comments in articles where the editor was known to want to introduce changes, but either Primus Sanctus Don Bosco didn't see the messages (user with no email and who was editing through the mobile interface) or saw and ignored the pleas. User was blocked on Feb. 22 at 14:16 for 31 hours for disruptive editing. There are no further edits from Primus Sanctus Don Bosco after the block expired. However, at 14:06 on Feb. 23, made their first edit and then followed with dozens more of the same sorts of edits at Catholic cathedrals, churches, and prelates, most with the same edit summary of "By adding an incomplete Titles and links with general content." 108.56.139.120 (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Please move this page to the Wikipedia namepsce. Thanks. 108.56.139.120 (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bestagon ⬡ 02:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is likely a sockpuppetry issue here, involving a problematic campaign editor who is uncommunicative. Eric talk 03:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The sock appears to have been created to evade a 3-hour DE block. Indef block for the sock, one week for the master. Closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Similar editing pattern on same articles. Eric talk 03:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please note the request for additional information. Lacking that, this will need to be closed with no action taken. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't remember what prompted me to add this user here, can't tell from the user's editing history. It may have been a hasty move on my part, I don't know. Sorry if I was in error. Eric talk 03:46, 14 April 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

 * - .&#32;In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New user, same pattern. Eric talk 13:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Roy, sorry about any improper procedure. I just saw the new user, whose only two edits continued the pattern of previous socks of this puppeteer, so I thought I should report it. Is there some less escalated way to simply add a user to a list of possible socks in a case where it seems obvious to the reporter that they're seeing a continuing block evasion? Eric talk 15:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of escalation, it's a matter of providing evidence that can be evaluated, and the best way to do that is to point out specific edits by posting links to diffs. You've spotted some pattern, just let people know what exactly you spotted that made your suspicious. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have certainly done that in the past when establishing a case for what I thought was a new sockpuppetry pattern, but I guess I've been lazy when it has seemed cut and dried to me. I wish there were a way to point to the articles concerned, then have an automated process compare the edits of the suspected sock with those of the sockpuppeteer for the given article. Funny, I don't even care about these articles; it just bugs me that this person keeps hassling us.
 * Diff for Patriarch of Venice. Article history
 * Diff for Patriarch of Lisbon. Article history Eric talk 15:55, 24 June 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

 * This should possibly be merged with:
 * as I noted in the last report you opened, you need to provide evidence. Just saying, "New user, same pattern" isn't enough.  What specifically have you seen that makes you think these are the same person? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action taken. Lordship888 and Adamakiko120 are CU-confirmed to each other, as are the Primus pair.  But I don't see any strong evidence that those two pairs are all the same person.  It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure enough to act on it.  They certainly have similar editing interests, and are all relatively new accounts, but there's enough differences I can see that I can't lump them together.  As for the IPs, that seems relatively harmless and I don't see much point in blocking the IP, especially given that it's likely to be dynamic anyway. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * as I noted in the last report you opened, you need to provide evidence. Just saying, "New user, same pattern" isn't enough.  What specifically have you seen that makes you think these are the same person? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action taken. Lordship888 and Adamakiko120 are CU-confirmed to each other, as are the Primus pair.  But I don't see any strong evidence that those two pairs are all the same person.  It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure enough to act on it.  They certainly have similar editing interests, and are all relatively new accounts, but there's enough differences I can see that I can't lump them together.  As for the IPs, that seems relatively harmless and I don't see much point in blocking the IP, especially given that it's likely to be dynamic anyway. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)