Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugeeeen/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Multiple SPA users are participating in Articles for deletion/DaDaBIK. Most users have no contributions outside the AFD discussion, and all have similar argument - that the software is good and well used and should not be deleted. Thank you. SunDawn talk  05:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I don't know exactly how to answer to this accusation. I have a single, personal account (i.e. danzac64; you can find details dating back to the 2007 and 2012 at the link https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Danzac64) that I used in either the Italian or the English section of wikipedia. I contributed to few entries in the past (entries I created in the italian section: mebendazolo and Corriere dei ragazzi), but I frequently support wikipedia with donations since I use wikipedia also for professional reasons. On request, I can provide any evidence to the editors that I'm a single person behind the single (ita-eng) danzac64 user. Danzac64 (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I, too, have been swept into the sockpuppet business vis-a-vis DaDaBik. The moniker grimblefritz has been "mine" -- starting back on institutional servers, and following as I moved to the public arenas such as prodigy, sbc global, aol, hotmail, myspace, google, facebook, twitter, and so very many other platforms -- since long before DaDaBIK was even created. If I remember correctly, since 1986 or thereabouts. I don't know the DaDaBIK author and have never dealt with him personally, but I have made very good use of his creation over the years. As I stated in my prior comment, all within the context of proprietary company information and unable to be unexposed to the public. (I suspect this is the case for the vast number of DaDaBIK users.) I became aware of the proposed deletion and added my opinion that the proposed deletion was unwarranted. I will expand on that here. In the particular software segment, it is very unlikely to find formal review articles, especially from "major" publications, such as have been requested. It is a niche market, replete with contenders, and attempts to review them all would be futile (and, as there is a tendency for publications to do apples-to-oranges comparisons resulting in something like DaDaBIK being stood alongside an Oracle, as if comparable, are often meaningless.) While that "external references" test might be valid for something akin to LibreOffice, which is pitted head-to-head against the Microsoft and Google giants by the likes of PCMag, for niche packages like DaDaBIK and its competitors, they are most often left without options except for their own site, mentions in online forums such as reddit and stackoverflow, and the plethora of "alternatives to" and "compare to" sites. It is actually not so difficult to search and find many such results, which, in niche segments, are where information (and legitimization) comes from. It is, then, in my opinion, incorrect to declare such niche products (not only DaDaBIK) "non-notable" simply for a lack of cross-links with "major" publications, or references from external sites. (It is actually rather simple to get a listing of many sites developed with DaDaBIK by employing a simple search!) Quite a lot of perfectly fine software is located via these "non-major" sources, usually resulting in the seeker developing a list of contenders and downloading and testing out several until arriving at a selection. Furthermore, there are enough of these niche users to create a base of customers that are sufficient to sustain a business. That, I think more than cross-references and formal reviews, is a satisfactory indicator of notability for those who would find the niche of interest. For those to whom a particular niche is not of interest, I think it might be easy to assume a bias of non-notability; however, I would implore those people to consider how the niche operates rather than fall back on some "fits all" standard that doesn't really. Grimblefritz (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I only have this account and the only comments I made on Articles for deletion/DaDaBIK are the ones that I signed with my name. All the other 30+ comments are made by other people and apparently almost all of them are users of DaDaBIK. There are people there who have used DaDaBIK for years on important projects so I think it shouldn't sound surprising the fact they are commenting against the deletion for being "non-notable" software. Ugeeeen (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
'''This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their talk page or on this page as appropriate.'''
 * This looks more like canvassing (per Drmies' comment at the AfD) than like socking. I suppose it's possible that one or two IPs or new accounts are the same person, but all of this seems very localized to the one AfD (where things have cooled down since the page was semi'd), and it's not like any of this will sway the closing admin. Seems to me like Ugeeen (who likely has a COI with DaDaBIK) most likely requested that all of the software's users come write good things, with a bit more success than usual, and a bit more old accounts involved than usual, just due to the demographics of who edits Wikipedia. I will strongly warn them for COI editing and canvassing, but I don't see anything actionable for SPI. Closing. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)