Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stan Tincon/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Editing articles relating to Poland-German history; same attitude, same articles edited, no vandalism but the user has two accounts (currently active User:Tino Cannst and previous User:Stan Tincon) which he uses for POV information. Was warned before and reported for disputes. DIFFS links: , . Oliszydlowski (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Very well. I didn't notice the old account was currently inactive. However, shouldn't the older account be deleted permanently? That would help in preventing the user from accessing both accounts simultaneously in the future. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There's two problems here. One, is that a single instance of similar edits is not enough to hang a sock on.  If you could provide more detailed diffs showing clear evidence of socking, that would help.  The other problem is that the history shows that Stan's last edit was 13 August and Tino didn't start editing until 6 September.  While I agree there's suspicion that they're the same person, moving from one account to another is not, by itself, socking.  They could have made a clean start, lost their old password, etc.  If one of these is true, it would have been better if they disclosed it on their user page, but failure to disclose that is not enough to call somebody a sock.  So, unless there's some real evidence of intent to evade or deceive, I'm inclined to close this with no action until and unless the older account becomes active again.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Clerk: it looks like is actually the older account, so if nothing else, this should be refiled under that user.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've dropped warnings on both of their talk pages. We don't block users to proactively prevent possible future abuse.  If Stan Tincon starts to edit again, we can take further action, but for now, I don't think there's anything that needs doing here beyond the warnings I issued (and the re-filing under the correct case name).  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Case moved —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( originally filed under this user)

I'm suspecting the reported user is operating an alternative account to push selected text into various articles.

Evidence # 1 :

(aka Stan Tincon - see above) removes text Recovered Territories with an edit summary ...NOT politically neutral

Graf von Aehrenthal arrives two days later to do the same with a matching edit summary ...neutral name

Evidence # 2 :

Tino Cannst removes text Recovered Territories again from the different article

Graf von Aehrenthal arrives two days later to do the same (notice equal use of the term neutral again in edit summary)

Evidence # 3 :

Tino Cannst removes text Recovered Territories again from the different article

Graf von Aehrenthal arrives two days later to do the same (notice equal use of the term neutral again in edit summary)

Evidence # 4 :

Tino Cannst enters text Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II 

Graf von Aehrenthal arrives one month later to do the same

Evidence # 5 :

Then they make matching edits to this article:

Tino Cannst

Graf von Aehrenthal

Evidence # 6 :

..and this article:

Tino Cannst

Graf von Aehrenthal

Evidence # 7 :

...and matching nature of edits in this article:



Evidence # 8 :

Please also notice Tino Cannst's edit in this article in September 2021. Graf von Aehrenthal requested a move of that page one year earlier with a related narrative.

Evidence # 9 :

Notice the use of the phrase Polish propaganda or propaganda by both:

Graf von Aehrenthal inside these edits - and here

Tino Cannst in his edit summaries - and here  and here  and here

My concerns about sockpuppetry are based on the fact that Graf von Aehrenthal has made a total of 20 edits, but all of them are identical or corresponding and in support of Tino Cannst in the same articles. This can’t be a coincidence in my humble opinion. (added later - after further examination I have no doubts both accounts are operated by the same person) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith

All Graf von Aehrenthal’s edits were performed on these three days: It looks like conscious editing while on holiday away from their usual location. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * August 25, 2020 - 10 edits
 * October 23, 2020 - 8 edits
 * January 25, 2022 ( two years later ) - 2 edits


 * Could you take a look at this previously filled SPI with Tino Cannst involved (25 July 2021)? Perhaps this will help--> - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @GizzyCatBella I can only report what the CU data tells me. If a clerk or patrolling admin finds other evidence which outweighs the CU result, that's their prerogative. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2022 (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
>>> sorted('Stan Tincon'.lower) == sorted('Tino Cannst'.lower) True
 * I admit the behavioral evidence presented here is strong, but CU data says Tino Cannst is ❌ to Graf von Aehrenthal, with no indication of proxy use. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dooh...
 * For those of you who don't speak Python, they're anagrams. Graf hasn't edited in months, so not worth worrying about. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Has something changed to make this ILLEGIT since you warned the two accounts in 2019? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 22:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. No, of course not.  I just let my excitement at discovering this bit of trivia get the better of me.  Unblocked them both. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)