Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tenebrae/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I’m on a phone so will have to do this over several edits; apology in advance.

I was concerned that 65.78.8.103‘s very adept-almost masterful-arguments on a subject coupled with their advanced knowledge of Wikipedia indicates they were quite experienced and unlikely a newer user. It wasn’t until a day or so ago that Tenebrae, who had nearly identical style and arguments on the same subject perhaps tipped their hand writing in the same style and stating the matter would be taken to ANI, which 65.78.8.103 immediately did. Looking at their interactions report confirmed a steady overlap of editing.

Between 2016-06-01 and 2020-03-07 on en.wikipedia.org User:Tenebrae (talk | contribs) and User:65.78.8.103 (talk | contribs) both made edits to some pages in common. You can see a chronological list of all their edits on the Interaction Timeline or a table view on the Interaction Analyser. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have never argued on a single talk page as both 65.78.8.103 and Tenebrae. Indeed, scrupulously, Tenebrae never appears in the RfC at Talk:Peppermint (drag queen). Moreover, I never did anything at any page to try to avoid 3RR or do anything else untoward. We're certainly allowed to edit under our IPs, which I sometimes do a) when I forget to log in, and b) when I want to avoid the baggage and messages and requests for help etc. that often pile up when I log in at Tenebrae. None of the "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" at WP:SOCK apply.


 * Gleeanon409 is behaving in a retaliatory manner, since an ANI against him here (see bottom of page) resulted in the affected page being blocked from editing because of his disruptive behavior. When I posted the requisite warning on his talk page, he erased it with a threat to me:.


 * I have no idea if this retaliatory SOCK claim has anything to do with User:Berean Hunter blocking me for a year. But I have never heard of either thing until today, and I'd certainly welcome comments to see if this can be clared up. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 22 March 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
Please comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I anon-blocked the IP address with the instruction to use your account. I did not block your account and you would not be able to edit this page if I had.
 * You have used both your IP address and your account to edit WP project space. Per WP:LOGOUT, "...using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternative accounts listed earlier in this policy." which leads to WP:PROJSOCK, "Editing project space". You should not be using the IP to edit project space.
 * You have IP socked on an article before as you used your account to revert back to your IP edit.
 * Then there was this edit followed by this which I believe that you requested oversight for? Not sure why you would request oversight but then make this edit and this edit both with summaries where you claim, "This is 65.78; I haven't felt like logging in, but I'm doing so now..." and you posted behind your IP a few days after that here.


 * Thanks,, I was planning on getting around to this today. , I have blocked you for two weeks. The only reason it isn’t indefinite is that you directly admitted it once. Since that admission however, you’ve edited in project space logged out and have ignored Bbb23’s request for an explanation, which amounts to avoiding scrutiny, which is prohibited by our policy on use of multiple accounts. BH has disabled logged out editing for a year on your IP, which is appropriate given the policy violations. Your edits here show your account isn’t impacted. After your two week block is up, you’re free to edit using your account. I’m closing this case now. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

During my involvement in content disputes with Tenebrae and JDDJS, it became clear that sockpuppetry was at play due to these reasons: I'd also like to request CheckUser to determine if there are any sleeper accounts. KyleJoan talk 06:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Both users have requested blocks for themselves for near-identical reasons.
 * Tenebrae: I'd like to ask you to block me from editing Wikipedia from this Monday until the following Saturday. I have a serious problem not being to stay away from working on Wiki, and it's affecting my work and my deadlines.
 * JDDJS: Can you block me and my IP address for the next 2 hours so I can do my homework without being distracted?
 * They have interacted on an alarming number of articles.
 * Their respective timecards, seen here and here, show near-identical editing timeframes.
 * They have been in lockstep with one another during multiple RfCs, including those related to, as seen here and here; , as seen here; and , as seen here.
 * Would it be so out of the realm of possibilities that somebody who has described themselves as being Wiki-addicted would simultaneously edit via multiple devices, especially since one edits via a mobile device while the other does not? In addition, is it not suspicious that they have never reached out to one another via their respective user talk pages in ten years given the number of articles in which they have interacted? Not only that, but right after Tenebrae filed an ANI report about me, JDDJS chimed in even though no one had notified them about it.
 * We're also discussing something more than similar interests and opinions; I have never seen them disagree on anything. The two have supported each other even during a dispute related to adhering to a content guideline. Tenebrae and I had disagreed on the use of primary sources in addition to secondary sources per WP:RSPRIMARY. I then opened a discussion that has generated a consensus to adhere to the aforementioned guideline.
 * Blueboard: In cases when the primary and secondary sources agree, there is no need to cite both... the secondary sources are preferred.
 * Alanscottwalker: The preference is for secondary sources.
 * Jc3s5h: When preparing to edit an article, the editor ... would view the primary source. Then the editor would choose the secondary source that best represented the primary source ...
 * Yngvadottir: Instagram citation superfluous w/ Playbill.
 * JDDJS has never been involved in this dispute or any of the discussions related to it, but they directly commented on it in the ANI report (i.e., Why is it a big deal using a primary source in addition to a secondary source?), which has been the most confusing and suspicious part of all of this. If Tenebrae's point in the dispute had been wholly contradicted, then why did JDDJS continue to parrot their point? KyleJoan talk 08:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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


 * I thank the admins involved for truly rolling up their sleeves in and putting in admirable effort on this. I'm appreciative. And may I just say that KyleJoan digging up my Wikiaddiction from 2006, a timeframe KyleJoan never mentions, is really beyond the pale. Addiction is addiction, and for KyleJoan to attack me for it after some 14 years of "being clean" is personal harassment. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Plenty of users have requested self blocks for those same reasons before. It's not surprising that long-term users who have been here for 10/15 years would overlap on articles. As for the timecard thing, note Tenebrae and JDDJS have made significant edits to different articles simultaneously ( & ), so if this really was one person, I don't see how that would be possible. Not to mention both accounts have made thousands and thousands of edits over the years, trying to keep up the facade of being different people and never slipping up would be quite the achievement. It's plainly clear these are two different people who happen to have similar interests and opinions. Unless any better evidence is presented, I recommend closing this case shortly. Sro23 (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly reasonable an experienced user would know how things work here well enough to find the ANI on you, the user who's been in a dispute with them. Closing this bad-faith, retaliatory SPI with no action. Sro23 (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)