Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snooganssnoogans/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * These edits are concerning and suspicious:


 * Suspected sock master has been editing and commenting at the Jordan Peterson talk page for several hours today. He has been concerned about his edits being challenged there and is - for all intents and purposes - mostly losing his argument.  His posts have been quick responses to other editors.  That stopped when the IP suddenly showed up.  Strangely, while he has a lot of things to say about pretty much every topic on the talk page, he has not commented on the section started by the IP.  Even after his name was mentioned.


 * Suspected sockmaster frequents Reddit to search for content on himself and almost obsessively posts it links to it on his user page.  Within just a few minutes after the IP sock came to the Jordan Peterson talk page and posted the accusation of WP:MEAT, the suspected sockmaster then posted a link on his userpage to the same Reddit discussion.


 * Interaction timeline results here show no overlapping edits. Snoogans could have easily logged out to sock as the IP and then log back in to edit as himself.


 * The IP is obviously a sock because of their quick use of the WP:MEAT guideline at the Jordan Peterson talk page. When advised he needs to log in with his usual account, his excuse is also policy- and Wikipedia familiar-driven: "I am not voting or editing".

After looking at the possibility of Snoogamssnoogams being the sock, this screamed WP:DUCK at me. Obviously, a CU can't be done in this case, however, I think the evidence is pretty conclusively clear. I realize a clerk and/or admin might disagree.

I also want to make it known that this filing has nothing to do with the recent disagreements I've had with SS. This filing, however, does have everything to do with keeping things clean and policy-observant at the Peterson talk page as there is some tense discussion that will likely lead up to a survey or RfC. I'm not interested in seeing Snoogams blocked, but he does need to understand that - if is does turn out to be the IP sock - this kind of circumvention is simply not okay and cannot continue or be repeated at a later time.

Thanks for considering this SPI request.

(the meatpuppetry accusation should also be looked at, but that's another filing for another noticeboard) -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 23:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Insufficient evidence". Really?  Doesn't look like it to me.  I've seen you (and other respected SPI admins) sock block and indef for less, .  But, sure.  You get to call the shots so who am I to argue?  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Your obsession with me is getting creepy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Insufficient evidence. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Snooganssnoogans and Railhis have both edited the Brexit page and associated political pages. Although Railhis has only made a total of 39 edits, they do not edit like a genuine newbie; their 15th edit has an edit summary that refers to WP:BALANCE, and their 18th edit has an edit summary referring to WP:BALANCE and WP:OWNERSHIP. Both Snooganssnoogans and Railhis interact with other editors in a similarly confrontational manner - Snooganssnoogans has been blocked for personal attacks / harrassment, and Railhis told me that I wasn't acting in a grown-up manner and that I had "WP:OWNERSHIP problems" with the Brexit page , even though I had only made 9 edits to it at the time. On 13 May Snooganssnoogans made an edit to the Brexit page that I reverted. They reverted me back. Then reverted Snooganssnoogans, instructing them to stop edit warring and respect WP:BRD. Then an hour and a half later Railhis reverted Octoberwoodland - the first edit Railhis had made after nearly 5 weeks of inactivity. Their edit summary is odd and seems to be trying to explain away their sudden re-appearance on the scene as a "casual wiki user" by referring to an article about the Brexit page that appeared in Wired UK magazine on 29 April  Why would a genuine editor feel the need to do that? What is the probability that any editor, taken at random, would have read that particular magazine article? I would say quite low. However, Snooganssnoogans is definitely aware of it, because they were asked to contribute to it and are quoted by the article. In addition to this, on 31 March Railhis made an edit on the Brexit talk page in which they ping themselves. Is this a common-or-garden type error that editors regularly make, or is it that they temporarily forgot that they're not Railhis, but actually Snooganssnoogans? Finally, for extra context, please read this short thread on my talk page. If you follow the link in the last comment made by what seems to be a self-proclaimed sock of Snooganssnoogans, it leads to a tweet by a Twitter account named "Tarc" that states, "Are you really naïve enough to think that 1 acct being blocked means I no longer edit? Silly boy...". There was a WP editor named Tarc who was blocked indefinitely in 2015. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , could you elaborate on why you think not enough evidence has been presented to run a check on the Snooganssnoogans account? You state that you ran a check on the Railhis account because you believe they are likely to be a sock, so the question is, of whom? Snooganssnoogans has heavily edited the Brexit page and has a history of edit warring, as shown by posts on their talk page (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here). In the case I present above, Snooganssnoogans was reverted twice by two separate editors, the second of whom explicitly told them to respect WP:BRD. Within an hour and a half, the Railhis account appears - having not edited for over a month - and reverts back to the version that Snooganssnoogans was reverting to, using an edit summary that references a magazine article that Snooganssnoogans features in, but most editors would likely be unaware of. If this is not enough evidence to run a check on the Snooganssnoogans account, what sort of evidence are you looking for? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

The accusation boils down to: I and editor #2 both edited the Brexit article, and both of us have reverted the filer at some point. And some random editor suggested that I was a sock of a third editor? And somehow this means that we are all the same editor? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And for what its worth, I don't think I have at any point edited content that relates to the terms that are used about Brexit supporters and opponents. It's trivial nonsense. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have never edited Wikipedia with a proxy. I have travelled a bit in the last six months or so if that's what Tony is referring to by me likely using a proxy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The ping of Railhis to itself seems especially damning: "Reading through other talk page comments indicates that the overly aggressive manner in which you write is not an isolated issue on this topic. I suggest you stepping back. The definition of 'Remoaner' was evident from the previous description would stood on the article for at least 1 year,which indicated it was portmanteau of 'moaner' and 'Remainer'. However, as state previously I have accepted 's compromise definition. Why can't you?" This is a dead giveaway. I don’t know if this is a sock of Snoog, but Railhis is almost certainly a sock of someone. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I ran a check on Railhis because I believe there is enough evidence that he is likely a sock of someone to review the data there. That account is operating on proxies predominately. I did not run a check on Snooganssnoogans as I do not think enough evidence has been presented to justify one. Another CU may disagree with me, but I would encourage anyone who thinks a check between these two accounts to present clearer evidence. If that isn't presented and a CU doesn't comment, any clerk can feel free to close this case. If a clerk feels new evidence is enough to endorse for CU, feel free to change the status to that as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From a technical standpoint, the two accounts are ❌. I'll note that the claimed sock is likely using proxies and I suspect Snooganssnoogans is as well, but there is no overlap and they are using different devices. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your explanation. That would also be consistent with the CU results. My note was not an accusation so much as the CU results were a bit odd, so I thought it worth noting. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action since there doesn't seem to be any further movement on this, and no admin or clerk has recommended a block. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)