Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Salvatore42/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Created a promotional article for Durdana Ansari, then uploaded a photo using Ansarimobeen794 and started editing the article and defending against deletion etc with other accounts. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2020 (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
 
 * Ansarimobeen794 does not exist? The SandDoctor  Talk 22:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ansarimobeen794 does not exist on enwiki, but does exist elsewhere. (We can't CU them here.) The other accounts are all technically ❌. . ST47 (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The three talk pages, User talk:Salvatore42, User talk:MonksCroft and User talk:Hba5921 show a fairly consistent style in their responses to the cautions received. Cabayi (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding -- RoySmith (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like enough behavioral evidence to block all the enwiki accounts that exist. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With an unrelated result from CU, you'd fairly convincing evidence? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure I understand your question. The CU finding was "Unrelated, behavioural evidence needs evaluation".  The various interactions around Durdana Ansari seem pretty convincing to me.  Even the verbose style of edit comments:
 * Lakokhan: "Career: some of the source content edit wrongly on wrong date so thats why i edit it exactly what i needs to be like that"
 * Hba5921: "I think this is a more neutral and balanced image and profile of the lady. It needed some cleaning which I suppose I have done"
 * MonksCroft: "Removed deletion threat. Quoted sources are reputable newspapers The comment about the text being poorly written is potentially defamatory of the subject, although I have made some judicious improvements The suggestion that the article has been paid for is offensive and without foundation."
 * Salvatore42: "Found this individual and looked at her experience working for the BBC, working as a journalist, and now being a social activist, and the fact the British Royal Navy presented her an OBE and made her an honorary commander of the Royal Navy as a British born, Pakistani woman. There are enough third party verifiable sources to create an article."
 * points to it being the same person. If the edits are being done via a bot net or something like that, that would effectively hide any technical connection. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * with an unrelated result, a CU is saying that, based on the technical evidence, they are absolutely not the same person. The 'behavioural evidence needs evaluation' template means that there may be a behavioural connection through, for example, meatpuppetry. If you're overriding an unrelated result by saying that they're the same person you need to have very convincing evidence as you're effectively saying that the technical evidence is wrong (including the CU's assessment that the IPs they're looking at are not proxies). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing, no action taken. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * with an unrelated result, a CU is saying that, based on the technical evidence, they are absolutely not the same person. The 'behavioural evidence needs evaluation' template means that there may be a behavioural connection through, for example, meatpuppetry. If you're overriding an unrelated result by saying that they're the same person you need to have very convincing evidence as you're effectively saying that the technical evidence is wrong (including the CU's assessment that the IPs they're looking at are not proxies). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing, no action taken. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)