Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZY80617/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

These editors all have in common that they are adding primary sourced text and trivial personal details to the bio of Amy Coney Barrett. The editors restore each other's edits and add additional content similar to that added by the other accounts. Earlier today, 136.37.147.44 restored a massive amount of text, which happens to be the same text that the other accounts added. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I also added "WePFew" who just now restored literally the same puffery-style content to the lead that was removed several days ago and which was originally added by "Takjs". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

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

I restored details regarding a judge's court decisions that seemed to be removed for political reasons. The version of the page prior to my edit lacked nuance and placed emphasis on the judge's nomination to the court of appeals rather than her rulings. Versions of the page that existed before the person was discussed as a supreme court justice also emphasized her rulings, rather than controversies during her nomination. Perhaps the issue should be addressed on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.37.147.44 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment I see that one IP is in Kansas and another is in Illinois. They do all seem to be tag-teaming when it comes to including WP:PUFF. This entire issue would be solved if/when the page is protected. KidAd   talk  19:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

By WePFew:

The allegation made against me: "I also added "WePFew" who just now restored literally the same puffery-style content to the lead that was removed several days ago and which was originally added by "Takjs""

I hightly disagree, I opened up a talk section for this particular reason. I did not restore "the same puffery-style content" of the content I saw removed several days ago as the sources used were different and removed by Snooganssnoogans specifically for lack of RS. Rather than edit out buzz words like "liberal" or "conservative" and applied appropriate RS that the article already uses such as a NYT article supplying the endorsements to Barrett, it was wholly removed.

The talk page has the content I supplied which is in question and it's different. It actually has RS now and does not fall under the reason for removal by Snooganssnoogans of the previous which was that there was no RS. He did not make the claim of puffery for that removal. Further It's not puffery as Wikipuffery is praising adjectives by the author to the subject whereas the only claim I have made hold "A more neutral tone and the provision of factual information, cited to a reliable source" which "on the other hand, is the appropriate style" as stated in the Wikipuffery article. There's no novel conclusion or misattributed synthesis and the very subjects of those letters of endorsements are exactly that, endorsements. In any case I began a talk section on this matter as advised and I seek to find an appropriate conclusion. --WePFew (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All this being said I believe this to be an accusation of bad faith. My content that I added is substantially different than the content Snooganssnoogans doesn't seem to wish to seek consensus on and simply repeatedly remove, especially when my change adequately satisfies the initial complaint that there was "no RS."--WePFew (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Amy Coney Barrett is a hot topic these days, so it's not surprising lots of new users are drawn to editing that article. We'll need something more specific to justify labeling these users as socks.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Requested information not supplied. Closing with no action taken. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)