Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheFutureIsHere2100/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)




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


 * TheFutureIsHere2100 and Quicklibrary accounts were both created three weeks ago.
 * They all have very similar styles of writing edit summaries.
 * All will tag things as minor edits and they aren't.
 * All seem very concerned about the same AfD discussion: Articles for deletion/Balaji Srinivasan
 * In that discussion, the Quicklibrary and TheFutureIsHere2000 both voted multiple times to support a speedy deletion. Quicklibrary was the nominator of the article. Kristyuhorton also, coincidentally, voted speedy delete. They are the only ones who have suggested that. Both Quicklibrary and TheFutureIsHere2100 wrote their speedy deletes in a similar style in their latest contributions Kristyuhorton also does a similar presentation style on her talk page comments. Missvain (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Added Bitbro1972 to the investigation. They are also concerned about the same AfD, also supporting deletion. They also coincidentally, contributes Romani-related articles, just like TheFutureIsHere2000
 * Added Plasticdying as they also voted twice on the same Afd and are a SPA. Ew3234 (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

It honestly disgusts me that one of the articles I created has been the target of deletion by a sockpuppeter. Seeing as the sockpuppeter was the one who nominated the article for deletion in the first place, I would suggest closing the AFD discussion as keep until further notice. X-Editor (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Weird activity at the Articles for deletion/Balaji Srinivasan page: So many newbie editors converging around Balaji Srinivasan is odd. I agree with X-Editor. We should close the AFD discussion as keep until further notice. Chisme (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Quicklibrary joined Wikipedia on April 29 yet he knew enough about Wikipedia to initiate a deletion discussion of the Srinivasan article only six days later on May 5. Most newbies don't know Wikipedia well enough to do that.
 * TheFutureIsHere2100 joined Wikipedia on April 30; six days later he found his way to Srinivasan's deletion page where he argued to delete.
 * Bitbro1972 edited Wikipedia for one day only (May 14). He made all of seven edits, two of them to Srinivasan's deletion page, where he argued to delete.
 * Kristyuhorton joined on April 22, made several edits to the Srinivasan article on April 23 and subsequent days, and has argued to delete. Curiously for a newbie, she also knew enough about Wikipedia to accuse me of 3RR warring on my Talk page. She took and submitted the photo of Srinivasan that appears in his article, which indicates she has a less than objective connection to the subject.

Hi, I'm QuickLibrary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims

Okay, I'd like to say I'm a little offended at being called a sockpuppet so definitively and so aggressively. I didn't know that I couldn't submit additional votes or respond to further 'Keep' rationale in a Deletion Discussion, as Missvain graciously pointed out to me. I realize that makes me a 'newbie', as Chisme calls me, but I don't think Wikipedians should stop participating in the project if they're 'new', or defame someone else for being new to editing Wikipedia. No one would ever be experienced if everyone did that!

As for the idea that I should not comment on a page or nominate something for deletion if other people will also, well, hey, I can't control what other people do or don't do. I maintain that the article is simply not a good article for reasons of lack of notability of the subject, and original research required to substantiate its points, as I pointed out in my deletion submission (which I will be editing to conform to the standard (which I was not aware of).

I don't think I write in a similar style to anyone else. I do try to maintain a professional tone in my comments, as I *do* consider both of you, Chisme and Missvain, as colleagues in a project. It's possible that the kind of corporate-talk language typical of N. American offices is same-y sounding. I'll be sure to let more of my own voice and verve come through in the future, I just figured that would be distracting and bad form.

Thanks for your attention to this matter, Quicklibrary (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC) QL


 * No, I'm not Quicklibrary, run whatever checks you want. Also, the photo is public domain from Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/techcrunch/36539575173/in/album-72157686141707541/ Kristyuhorton (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Of the accounts listed, the only two that are ✅ sockpuppets of each other are Bitbro1972 and TheFutureIsHere2100. The rest appear to be ❌ from a technical standpoint. In cases like this where we have a bunch of new, apparently unrelated users target a single AfD, it's most likely the case that there is some kind of off-wiki recruiting going on, e.g. the article or AfD got posted on an Internet forum or social media website somewhere. The best mitigation is generally to just tag the suspected single-purpose accounts with spa at the discussion so that the closing admin can appropriately weigh the strength of the arguments. At this time, I will be blocking Bitbro1972 and TheFutureIsHere2100 for sockpuppetry, and I will take no action against the other users. Please move this case under TheFutureIsHere2100, the older of the two confirmed accounts. Mz7 (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ and closing. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 07:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)