Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sportstir

Honestyisbest

Honestyisbest (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Please note that a case was originally opened under Sportstir (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honestyisbest. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honestyisbest.

21 September 2021

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Brodiebrock (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

• Honestyisbest had a history of removing references to Aust of the Year (Grace Tame) in the Amanda Stoker article - [1]+[2]+[3]+[4]+[5]+[6]+[7]
• Brodiebrock (newbie 3 weeks old) has been using similar editing methods in whitewashing now on the Grace Tame article, removing content central to her abuse and activism - [8]+[9][10]+[11]
• Both users are new to the 2 pages and currently focus the pages I have been active with [12], [13] - with the topic and POV being the same, that is POV pushing against Grace Tame Aust of Year.
• I became suspicious and quizzed Brodiebrock on whether they were operating under another ID, but they refused to answer my concerns & deleted my discussion from their talkpage. [14], [15].
• Both editors notified of this SPI request on their talkpages. CatCafe (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• History of the Brodiebrock account strongly suggests it is a sock as not a new editor. Its POV / bias in altering article content and edit-warring in violation of WP:3RR warrant action whether it is a sock or not. Sadly, Bilorv, who started the ANI thread against CatCafe, is more interested in CatCafe's edit warring than in Brodiebrock's POV-pushing and I hope that the Brodiebrock account is dealt with appropriately by an admin who can recognise the problem of POV-pushing, whether there is technical SOCK evidence or not. 112.213.147.109 (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you input 112.213.147.109, so do you have any other user ID's you suspect are socks linked to Brodiebrock/Honestyisbest? And maybe you wish to repaste here the content you put up at ANI. CatCafe (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

IP editors can't be pinged. I've never said I'm less interested in Brodiebrock's behaviour being dealt with (but the SPI was already underway), but CatCafe's edit warring was (and is) not being taken seriously. — Bilorv (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

CatCafe, I have strong suspicions that Brodiebrock is a SOCK based on the edits that have been made. CMD's evidence below is certainly suggestive of the link you have proposed. My greater point, however, is that Brodiebrock's actions on their own are justification for action, irrespective of whether they are a SOCK and irrespective of who the master account is. I hope that a CU check can reveal connections and thus reduce disruption to article space, but even if it can't, I hope that suitable action is taking because bias and POV-pushing need to be addressed.

Bilorv, I interpreted your reply to me at ANI as you being less interested in Brodiebrock's behaviour because I posted evidence of article-space disruption by Brodiebrock and your only response was that it wouldn't justify CatCafe edit warring... but my evidence was not defending CatCafe, it was pointing out that Brodiebrock's disruption is problematic. I posted at ANI a clear sequence of edits over less than three hours in which Brodiebrock certainly reached 4RR, a violation of the bright-line 3RR restriction if nothing else, and these were part of a pattern that shared a political bias. You had already posted links to CatCafe's possible violation of 3RR ("these look like 4 reverts (possibly it's 3)," as you put it in your initial report), so edit warring on both sides is established. I know you posted notices to user talk:Brodiebrock, but that page's history and the edit summaries during the edit war, not to mention the ones from Brodiebrock since the account first appeared (that I described at ANI), demonstrate an awareness of edit warring. Brodiebrock warned CatCafe and then reverted CatCafe on CatCafe's user talk page to restore the warning. I am not defending CatCafe, but I am saying that Brodiebrock's edits and actions are a bigger problem and a greater threat to article space. I don't understand why you appear to view CatCafe as the bigger problem. 112.213.147.109 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• The first edit of Brodiebrock was this one, a reflection of this Honestyisbest edit and refers in its edit summary to Talk:The Australian#Recent lead removals where Honestyisbest was a primary contributor. Certainly precocious, as well as a direct link between the accounts. Potentially linked to Honestyisbest, potentially a separate precocious individual with a shared POV. CMD (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

---