Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/There-being/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * I'm WP:INVOLVED here, so nothing written here is done from a clerk capacity.
 * was well over WP:3RR at Twitter Files Investigation.
 * I warned them in their talk page.
 * Shortly after that, an IP from the range replies to the relevant talk page thread I opened.
 * Then I noticed that the user has been WP:LOUTSOCKing for a long while from.
 * See the consolidated timeline with selected individual addresses for the overlap:, not just in the same pages, but also involved in the same discussions (including project space) in short periods of time.
 * Also compare similar language (e.g. ). MarioGom (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I was considering opening an investigation against this same user based on their contributions at Articles for deletion/Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting. An IP user made multiple bombastic replies on that discussion up until 5 December. I believe all IP edits on this range are this editor: (the last 64 bits of an IPv6 being dedicated to hostid on a single network). They made about 13 or 14 contributions from that range in the discussion but ceased on 5 December. On 6 December There-being began contributing to that discussion instead, in a similarly (and unusually) bombastic tone, with similar idiolect. The similarities were striking enough that I checked the edit history of There-being, noting they had been non active since June, and in June they had claimed some IP edits (e.g. here ) which, checking the page history are IPv4 edits that gelocate to the same geographic location, the same AS and the same provider as the IPv6 addresses being used). I am aware that there are privacy issues regarding running checkuser to look for IP socking, but I believe behavioural analysis alone is enough to raise significant concern. Both the IP editor and There-being have made keep !votes on that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This editor is trying to dox me and reveal my IP address because of a content dispute, which is harassment. I am asking for you to stop this harassment. There-being (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that this user's talk page has a a warning from June about LOUTSOCKing during a heated political argument, which they claimed to have done accidentally and apologized for. The IP address in question (173.56.203.56) made hundreds of edits, mostly to talk pages on AP2 topics, and mostly to make argumentative political comments. jp×g 02:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Another user who basically admits they are here because they are upset that I am "argumentative" and so want to doxx my IP address. More harassment. Try winning your content disputes on the merits of your arguments. There-being (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You know what? I've decided I'm going to quit anyway as I'm sick of being harassed over content disputes by editors who are unable to win arguments with words. Learn to comment on content not contributors. It's not worth my time to continue to edit here when I'm going to be personally attacked and harassed by other editors for being "bombastic" and "argumentative" in contributing valuable references and reliably sourced content to our articles. Literally 3 editors involved in content disputes they couldn't win with words who come here to cry that I'm being "bombastic" and "argumentative" and ask to dox my IP address as punishment. Goodbye.  There-being (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There are other diffs that show similarities in language. ("opine"/"opining", and ad-hominems about other editors "crying"/having "cried"); don't have time to go through them all thoroughly, but I had the same suspicions as Sirfurboy during that Kanye-Fuentes-Trump AFD discussion — and I "stood" on the same side as the accused user during that content 'dispute'. DFlhb (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Indefinitely blocked the master and blocked the IP range for two months. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( originally filed under this user)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I posted an “ata-boy”-like warm fuzzy on Talk:Twitter Files that kept disappearing in a odd fashion that had another editor JPxG, and me confused because of the way the diffs in the history appeared; we at first suspected the thread was disappearing because of the wiki engine was miscounting thread numbers due to my use of a horizontal rule within my post. We undoubtedly exceeded our three-revert-per-day quota, but that was unintentional.

It turned out that the deletions of the post was the product of highly coordinated back & forth efforts by a known registered sockmaster, an I.P., plus another registered editor (Soibangla). The writing style and content of the objections to that post on the talk page and in the edit summaries were quite similar and were timed in a manner where the moment Soibangla ran up against the three-reverts limit, Soibangla disappeared and an I.P. objecting in the precise same manner popped up.

Also, other threads on Talk:Twitter had similar conflicts. Notably, Soibangla wanted to close a thread that wasn’t going in a direction he/she liked and had motioned to close. Shortly later, a brand new red-stub editor User:Wise and Beautiful Editor was created and the very first action was to (close) the thread.

This issue of using socks is particularly important on Talk:Twitter Files because the very article itself has been in the news, it is a contentious and partisan issue, and it is imperative that the appearance of a consensus not be fabricated when no such consensus truly exists. And the imperative to not be using socks is doubly important because Soibangla and the socks I suspect Soibangla is using are active on a wide variety of other articles, like Hunter Biden laptop controversy and Presidency of Donald Trump, where it is equally critical that a true and proper consensus is identified. DETAILS On 11 December 2022, I posted a warm fuzzy called “Nice work, everyone” over on Talk:Twitter Files. As you can see in that previous link, my intention was to encourage everyone to make the talk page a paradigm of collaboration because there was intense world-wide interest in the article.


 * • Just 90 minutes after posting that, an account that had previously been in trouble over sockpuppetry (∆ of comment by Red-tailed hawk), Tritler deleted it (22:11, 10 December 2022 diff). As you can see there in that diff, the reason cited by Tritler was an unusually sharp and critical comment (Revert sanctimonious right-wing blowhard glad-handing and congratulating himself over his conservative political beliefs). But the post itself contained nothing to indicate self congratulation or political leanings; it was nothing but encouragement. However, the edit summary proved to be a signature of the objection from what I believe are the related socks.


 * • Then Soibangla deleted it at 22:43 (diff)


 * • And Soibangla again at 22:46 (diff)


 * • Then switch off to Tritler again at 01:37, 11 December (diff)


 * • And Tritler again at 1:54 (diff)


 * • Then the switch off again to Soiblangla at 02:04 (diff) with this edit summary: ''what part of WP:NOTFORUM eludes you?


 * • Then, having exhausted their respective reverts per day, an I.P. 174.197.133.171 gets in the act at 04:27 (diff)


 * • Finally, I.P. 174.197.133.171 does one final revert at 04:42 (diff), with this edit comment alleging precisely the “WP:NOTFORUM”-releated objection that Soiblangla wrote minutes earlier: Please come back when you’ve read WP:NOTFORUM. Realize it is specifically about talk pages and posted at the top of this page to stop garbage posts like yours

One reason there were so many reversions is my use of an intra-thread horizontal rule seemed to increment the thread number when in edit mode by one count; that was really fouling things up until I got rid of the horizontal rule and let the wiki engine’s servers get back into synch and then we could see what was really occurring. In addition to me, another editor there, JPxG had been restoring the post (diff), both of us thinking we were correcting a technical issue; we had no intention to edit war or exceed our three-per-day revert quota. I’d click on page differences and see that another thread had been deleted. I could see that the history on the page would show one thing and five minutes later, the edit differences were different. JPxG and I had some back and forth discussions while troubleshooting the problem, which we discussed on the top two posts here on my talk page, as we at first couldn’t understand how my post on Talk:Twitter Files was disappearing; JPxG suggested it was a thread-number miscount and I theorized it was the horizontal rule.


 * • After it became clear that the thread was being purposely deleted, I went to Soibangla and posted Deleting other’s posts is darned poor form on his/her talk page.


 * • One minute later, Soibangla deleted my post (diff), with this edit summary: HAHAHA. Soibangla did the same thing, deleting a post by JPxG on Soibangla’s talk page, admonishing against edit warring and vandalism; Soibangla  just deleted it too.

Background on related issue that introduces another apparent sock: There is a second thread on Talk:Twitter Files, "Baseless" and can CNN be considered an RS… at least on Twitter-related news?. This is a serious issue as Soibangla and a few others wanted to mention in the article how Musk made a tweet that, because CNN characterized Musk’s tweet as suggesting that the target of the tweet (who shall remain nameless here) had falsely implied that the target was sympathetic to pedophilia. As the target had to go into hiding for fear of his life over that tweet, it would obviously have been an egregious BLP violation to mention it in the article.

As you can see there, JPxG had added a helpful table to be used as an RfC, of sorts, to clarify what the issues were and who stood where on them. Once the weight of the consensus showed there was no enthusiasm at all to put that bit in articlespace (which was contrary to what Soibangla wanted), Soibangla motioned that the thread be closed (diff), with this comment: I move this matter should be closed and the existing content retained.


 * • I objected to closing that thread and the accompanying RfC-like table because it served the important purpose of establishing a true consensus on a variety of matters, other editors hadn’t been afforded enough time to weigh in on the still-evolving table, and I had invited (pinged) two specific editors who had been active on that thread. No one seconded the motion to close.


 * • So five days later, a brand new red-text, newly created obvious throw-away account, Wise and Beautiful Editor sprang into action and the very first action was to that thread (diff), with the following edit summary that has the same hyperbolic and vitriolic style as Soibangla: closing wildly off-topic, outrageously long exposition of one editor’s banal personal.


 * • That closure was quickly reverted by another editor (diff).


 * • Note that Wise and Beautiful Editor is a single-purpose editor with a strong left-leaning slant and a focus on only important and topical political-related articles (contribs), which is the same type of editor that Soibangla is; examine Soibangla’s user page as well as Soibangla’s contribs. Soibangla always deletes anything that impeached Twitter’s old behavior, like this deletion and this one. And when Soibangla actually manages to add material, it is to act as a Twitter apologist by slanting the article with “explainers” like this edit.


 * • Quite notably, it was Soibangla who nominated The Twitter Files for AfD, which User:Sandstein quickly snowballed as “Keep.” Failing that, Soibangla settled for camping out primarily at The Twitter Files but also Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy, averaging about 20 edits a day for ten days straight without a day off. This passionate outlier behavior (trying to get entire articles deleted, closing out threads, and deleting threads, which are positions not shared by the consensus of the larger wikipedian community) provides a possible motive underlying the apparent sock-based tag-teaming I’ve detailed above.


 * • And true to form for a throw-away sockpuppet account, Wise and Beautiful Editor is used for breaking the rules of Wikipedia with posts like this: (diff). That post quickly resulted in an admonishment by Slywriter, as follows: Now cut the personal attacks or you will be reported to the Admins. (diff).


 * • Further reinforcing that Wise and Beautiful Editor is a purpose-built sock and is a throw-away account, is what happened after an I.P. editor gave me a barnstar for “Fighting the good fight” here on my talk page. The I.P. wrote I have found myself discouraged by the very clear slant and what I would call bird-dogging of a series of current events pages by a small but very clear group of editors with an agenda that flies in the face of WP:NPOV, I saw you did not rise to the bait and stood your ground eloquently and logically in the face of that… Only 52 minutes after I responded, Wise and Beautiful Editor weighed in there with another comment that has the hallmarks of the axe Soibangla has to grind. One receives passive/aggressive dismissals by Soibangla (supplemented by known socks and I.P.s when necessary) and the purely aggressive and uncivil alter ego is performed by the Wise and Beautiful Editor sock that was newly created and instantaneously quick to carry out Soibangla’s wishes. The master and socks all share a common writing style and talking points and do each other’s dirty work and creates the appearance of a consensus… but it appears to be a fabricated one.

As this is my first SPI, I hope I have provided the necessary information in as convenient a form as possible. I think I have well-founded suspicions and hope only that I.P. traces be performed to see if these four editors are all the same underlying individual.

If my evidence proves to not support my suspicions, I hope there will be little if any inconvenience to these editors. If, on the other hand, it is found that a plurality of accounts are controlled by the same individual, I propose that—given the propensity of this editor to create new accounts—the proper recourse is to block the I.P. address.

Greg L (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I have never socked. Never. I have never logged out to post IP. Not once. The given...propensity of this editor to create new accounts is not a given at all, as this is the only account I have ever created and used. I have had no association whatsoever with any of the editors the accusing editor alleges. My writing style does not remotely resemble that of any alleged socks. I have diffs to show the accusing editor was decisively shown by another editor two weeks ago that the socking allegation is false but the accuser has persisted in insisting it's true, now for at least the fourth time since being shown it was false; search on Well, I like this post here:.

I encourage SPI folks to use their tools and methods to promptly establish that this complaint is false, thus rendering the remainder of the accusing editor's lengthy exposition here moot and irrelevant, such that this SPI matter may be promptly closed. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This "Wise and Beautiful Editor" is obviously a sock of someone: their very first edit was to jump into the middle of a long talk page argument and close it with the hat template and a snide remark. I suspect that WABE, Tritler, and the other SPAs posting flames are just some random bystander stirring up shit for the lulz. It would be a win-win deal for trolling: you get to piss off Greg by repeatedly flaming him, piss off soibangla by making them look extremely suspicious, and piss off everybody else who now has to deal with those two being pissed off. But who knows. I admit to not being particularly well-versed in CheckUser etiquette, but it seems like a CU is probably warranted anyway. jp×g 15:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur with above that somethings amiss and that soibangla isn't the cause. Slywriter (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that the accounts Wise and Beautiful Editor and Tritler have been blocked for being sockpuppets of the user There-being; the suspected IP has been previously blocked as being a suspected sockpuppet of Tritler. So, I agree that soibangla is likely not the puppetmaster, and given their strong opinions on the Twitter Files and frequent ideological clashes with the accuser, I can see how this misunderstanding could arise. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * for the record, I chose to disengage from the accusing editor some two weeks ago for reasons that may be discussed in another venue at some later date. soibangla (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Might be good to see the WP:BOOMERANG come 'round. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a boomerang here. Soibangla is obviously not socking and this is a baseless personal attack of Soibangla even if WABE is a sock. Andre🚐 04:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with BOOM. WABE and Soibangla's writing styles are as different as Hemingway and Dr. Seuss. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. +1. This filing was abusive, and it's the kind of thing that drains editor resources from important articles. It should not be normalized. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Let us know how it all turns out. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I ran a check on before I saw this filing. That account is =  = . Soibangla didn't show up in that check, and from a cursory read of this (very long) filing, I don't think there are sufficient grounds to check them, but most AMPOL-related things make my brain hurt, so I'll leave the close to someone else. If there is nothing else to do, this should probably be merged to Sockpuppet investigations/There-being/Archive (Tritler is oldest, but moving to a uhblocked account doesn't seem like a great idea). .  --Blablubbs (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Case moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Soibangla. Closing. Spicy (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)