Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Serolss/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Investigating socking at 2020_California_Proposition_16... ST47 (talk) 20:59, 18 October 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

 * ✅, . ST47 (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * BTW I doubt that the Serolss impersonation account is the correct master, but it's the best I can find at the moment. ST47 (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , any chance this is KingShowman? The impersonating username is definitely reminiscent of them, though I don't think the behavior is. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, the location isn't even close. ST47 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , roger that, thanks. Will just archive this. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Added tags. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


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

Similar subject matter interest and, of note, removing the same political endorsement from a Congressmember both on: Seems to be ducking to escape from 3RR maybe? JesseRafe (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * the candidate's page
 * the article about the election
 * as IP, on the same page, confusingly after the issue that SFA had about the AMNY source, but when it was replaced with the same Gothamist source that SFA removed from Eric Adams, IP removes from the race
 * Dude,, just because multiple people disagree with you doesn't make them the same person.. Sucker for All (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The only editor on this topic "multiple" people disagree with is you, given the number of reverters you've encountered in adding contentious and removing legitimate material. You are not helping your case by casting aspersions and further acting in bad faith. Defend yourself, but don't attack the nominator. JesseRafe (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that my ip address is 71.246.122.54 and those are 2 different ips from mine, yes, multiple people. Sucker for All (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Less than ten minutes after Bbb23 blocked IP, Sucker for All came back to re-remove the content again. JesseRafe (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Just added 2600:1010:b02e:970d:b01f:beca:afb:d47d, which seems too obvious and sudden and maybe SFA is being railroaded by IP picking up their controversy or maybe it's to duck. SFA did go to talk page, but maybe still using IPs to EW since they seem to prefer reverting to discussion broadly. JesseRafe (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it. I was also going to say that edits by 2600:1010:b02e:970d:b01f:beca:afb:d47d are interfering on 2021 New York City mayoral election in a similar/nearly identical manner. Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At the center of the argument is the reliability of Gothamist. I just question whether we always work with that, will we also work with Breitbart, which is basically a right wing analog? Sucker for All (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Hello: This was an honest mistake, I don't know the user you're referring to in the investigation. I was trying to edit the "background" section of the page and mistakenly undid your addition of the endorsement. Upon realizing what you were pissed off about, I promptly added the endorsement, along with the changes to the background page, back. This is ridiculous and I shouldn't have to defend myself over an honest mistake, but here we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.97.113 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was honest, please use facts. You were not editing in that section at all. You undid or reverted my edit, which was not even to the "Background" subsection, but the "Endorsement" section. You were not adding anything, but removing a section and used the cryptic "use the talk page" edit summary, which would be strange if it were your first edit there, but could be easily understood as a retort if you were the same editor removing that content initially. It is hard to take your "honest" mea culpa here seriously. JesseRafe (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Those edits weren't me, and I don't know .. This is altogether confusing. Could someone explain why I'm being investigated? Sucker for All (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you mistakenly undid that endorsement, why did you do it three separate times (at least) across two articles? Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was clearly referring to the edits made from the ip, which isn't me. I of course, intentionally deleted the poorly sourced endorsement multiple times, and I was apparently not the only one. A different ip user ( 2600:1010:b02e:970d:b01f:beca:afb:d47d ) deleted the poorly sourced endorsement today. That was also not me. Just because multiple people disagree with you, doesn't make them sockpuppets. Sucker for All (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An attempt at obfuscation? That same IP user has been added to this investigation. This is not about a "poorly sourced endorsement", so you are misrepresenting edits that have taken place. Shoestringnomad (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is. If someone other than gothamist picked up the endorsement, add that source. Sucker for All (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Question: How was Serolss introduced to this discussion?, was that a mistake and confusion with Sucker for All? I believe the claim was only made against Sucker for All, not Serolss. --Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for blocking the new IP for one week . I am wondering, however, if you would also block User:Shoestringnomad, who engaged in a clear violation of WP:3RR Sucker for All (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am wondering if there is a place to go to discuss the general reliability of Gothamist because that is at the center of this discussion. Seems myself and wikipedia readers disagree with a couple of users about the topic. Sucker for All (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I blocked the IP for six months for block evasion (User:Serolss).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * - I'm not sure what to do with this report. Highly unlikely that the IP is both Serolss and Sucker for All. I think it would be helpful to note the block for the record in the Serolss case by merging it there. I'll leave it to a clerk to decide. Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the new IP for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please do not bring up issues here that are irrelevant to Serolss. If you have a problem with 3RR, got to WP:ANEW. If you have a problem with a particular article, use that article's Talk page to resolve it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * agrees that "a merge makes sense".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I came here because I was asked for input. I concur that the IP is clearly Serolls, and I think the IPv6 is also them. I do not think that there is, at this time, conclusive evidence tying Sucker for All to the IPs; agreement between editors is a sufficient explanation here. If you truly believe that Sucker for All is tied to the IPs, then subsequent investigation should take place at the Serolls SPI in a new filing, with new evidence that conclusively ties SfA to Serolls. If your suspicion is solely based on removal of the same content, then it is not sufficient for me to endorse action against Sucker for All. Finally, I want to note that SPI is not a good venue to discuss the reliability of specific sources – I suspect the WP:RSN archives might have some relevant discussions. Please consider this case closed, with the merge being the only thing that remains to be done.  I agree that a merge should take place – I'm not sure what policy or precedent are there (I doubt there is any), but if, in keeping with WP:NOTBUREAU, you want to do the histmerge yourself and book it as an indirect clerk action, you have my blessing (and I'll take the blame should anyone object).  --Blablubbs&#124;talk 20:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merged as requested. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * per below. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:30, 22 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

 * ✅ to McMasterCarr1995 and JimmyChen40 from the archives. Blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)