Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkunkaMunka/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This user is keeping trying to have their way in articles, and has edited the same two Columbus articles multiple times:


 * Columbus map reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 * John Glenn Columbus map reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4

This is not ANI, so I won't delve into the details, but I placed a userpage warning for their edits, and emailed them. What I said (omitting hello/regards) was:

"So I am a proponent of interactive maps. They're really very new, so not always utilized on city articles, but are increasing steadily, e.g. present on most New York City building articles and collapsed in the city's subway station articles. City articles that use them include New York, Chicago, Boston, Columbus, and Portland; some of the most-populous cities worldwide as well - Berlin, Tokyo, Shanghai, Mumbai, Beijing, Osaka, Bangalore... The interactive maps are modern web tools used across the internet, very well-known and easily used since Google Maps became so popular. They are zoomable, easily creatable and editable, can be used for small things like statues up to continents, and have many other functionalities that far exceed any prior mapping abilities. Take a look, for instance, at List of COTA bus routes. As routes change, mappers at OpenStreetMap will easily edit the routes, which in turn will update on this map automatically. Other street, river, or feature changes will also update in near-real-time. Maps like the ones you have tried to add are essentially JPG images - you'd need to open it on Photoshop or Inkscape or the like and manually paint in new details."

"Wikipedia doesn't necessarily generally operate with consistencies. If there is one clear winner everyone agrees upon, it may become a standard, but we're a big community with a lot of opinions. As far as I have seen, mapping is something everyone has different opinions on, and so they've left it to each local community editing, say, Columbus or New York or Shanghai, to choose what map works best for them. This is evident on Wikipedia's main page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - which looks like something out of the '90s World Wide Web. Most Wikipedians agree on that, but no proposal has ever passed to replace it."

They proceeded to edit their way into the Chicago, Boston, and Portland articles, and also modified Denver and San Francisco as well. This needs to stop. I am not sure why they are using multiple accounts and an IP (perhaps to look like more people support them) and without identifying themselves (outside of vague edit summaries), but that needs to stop as well. And I admit this has been a bit of an edit war - talking to IPs on user pages is usually fruitless, but it's clear they won't stop, so I'm done with reverts. ɱ (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition - the latest editor added was created shortly after my edits to Portland, saying to continue the edit war, saying "Ɱ, no one likes ur stupid maps". Likely the same user as above. ɱ (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Evidence should be plainly clear from the contributions pages; please let me know if it's not. But a new user whose first edit is "I can’t stop because we need to compromise..." while engaged in back-and-forth reversions is -not- a new user. ɱ (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Update: this user has decided to let up and let me revert their edits. Unless something changes, I won't pursue anything besides these other accounts closed and a reprimand not to create alternate accounts. ɱ (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * From a quick glance at the suspected Sockpuppet's contributions, I am nearly entirely convinced they all belong to the same person, the same person who you reported at ANI. Their contributions & edit summaries are extremely similar, they use the word "compromise" and "map" in the edit summary a lot, so for that reason, I agree with the reasoning for opening a SPI. ~ Ronja  (u • t • c) 13:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I can see that they seem to have a similar level of grammar. Also when looking at the edits, I can see that they configured the maps in almost entirely the same way. I also agree with Ronja, they do use similar grammar. For those reasons, I support opening an SPI. -  ''(15CoinsAt8

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It's certainly possible they're all the same person, but the supposed socks haven't edited in a month and SkunkaMunka appears to have agreed to stop their edit warring from what I've read on their talk page. So, in the hopes this was just a one-time thing, I left them a uw-agf-sock warning and let's let it go at that.  If problems persist, we can revisit with less AGF overtones. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)