Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sfacets/Archive

09 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Evidence was collected by ; I'm sure Andy doesn't mind if I summarize here. All three are/were active editors in the NRM (New Religious Movement) field. Sfacets was blocked in 2008 (for "exhausting the community's patience"), and Couchbeing was blocked for socking. Zambelo caught everyone's attention with their behavior in the NRM field, and Andy discovered that besides all the cult stuff Zambelo and Sfacets also share an interest in Sahaja Yoga and Bohemia (musician): both "patrol" the Bohemia article (Sfacets:, , , , ; Zambelo , , ). That's already a pretty unlikely combination, but most damning is the simple article overlap, which is quite astounding: most of those articles are NRM-related articles, including such esoteric articles as Jean-Marie Abgrall I don't know if Andy has anything to add; personally I am convinced that these are the same. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding to this, it is noticeable that Sfacets' and Zambelo's edits also overlap on simple.wikipedia - both edited their Cult and Heaven's Gate articles. Furthermore, Couchbeing (Sfacets' sock) edited our Hillsong Church article, as did Zambelo - and this isn't a cult-related topic as far as I can see. To my mind it is the 'non-cult' overlap that is hardest to explain away. Unrelated contributors, both editing cult-related topics - while also sharing an interest in a Pakistani American rapper, and an Australian Pentecostal church? Coincidence seems the least plausible explanation to me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * More non-cult Sfacets/Zambelo overlaps from the User compare report: Pune, Werner Erhard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, or just maybe I hd a look at that user's edit history? But you don't want to consider that, you want to have me banned in any way possible. Your conduct here is disgusting. Zambelo ; talk 07:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You 'just had a look at that user's edit history' so you could find articles on entirely unrelated subjects to edit? An editor who had ceased contributing (barring unidentified socks) six years ago? Yeah, right, that'll convince people... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In much the same way you appear to be looking at my edit history. Perhaps you should just give it up, you've already caused the ban of the one editor who was productively contributing to articles in NRM topics - pat yourself on the back. Zambelo ; talk 11:37, 14 October 2014 (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
and haven't edited since 2008 and are therefore stale for CU purposes. There is no technical data that can be used to compare against. Any connection made will need to be based on behavioural evidence.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Sorry, that makes sense. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If the evidence listed above were all I had to go on, I would regard this as a clear duck case. However, it is not all I have to go on. I have checked editing histories, and found considerable amounts of additional evidence, enough to put the matter way beyond any trace of doubt. I have blocked and tagged Zambelo. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of giving a heads-up to (en.wiki admin & simple.wiki CU+admin) about this SPI, just in case. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)