Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finrell ausi: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:48, 26 June 2020

Finrell ausi

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finrell ausi/Archive.

22 June 2020

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

We need another sweep, as newly created SPAs have popped up at Kim Go-eun to add the same puffery Finrell ausi and his various socks had done. Ə XPLICIT 00:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Please also check User:Lizzydarcy2008 as they were a sleeper account that activated recently only to add disruptive edits to The King: Eternal Monarch. If not related to Finrell ausi, they might be related to Surozee (also See) or Buckwheatflower. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From User:Lizzydarcy2008:
May I request Wikipedia:Administrators to review my discussions about The King Eternal Monarch in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CherryPie94#Reply_to_7th_email_about_The_King_Eternal_Monarch

All I requested for was to make this page not look like another poorly-written criticism of this drama. I was a voracious reader of encyclopedias before the internet came along and had expected Wikipedia to have the same integrity. Instead, I am afraid it is being used as a tool to blacken entities. As long as the negativity conforms to rules, e.g. verifiable, it is allowed. There is no asking: of all the thousand information about the entity that we are trying to fit into this one page, is that information more important than the other information we are leaving out? Are we being fair to this entity? Is this negative information found in other entities that encountered the same issue? That second paragraph in The King Eternal Monarch page did not answer those questions thus I removed it. It will be noted that the budget is already mentioned in another portion of the page; highlighting it is malicious. The rest of the discussions was trying to arrive at a compromise - leave the negative paragraph in but adopt a less negative tone. In short, try to make it sound more like an encyclopedia than a tabloid.

I have a full time job thus, so far, have only ever tried to intervene when I read Wiki pages that make me pause and ask those questions above; when I feel like I am reading a tabloid, not an encyclopedia.

Thanks and regards, Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk endorsed - Known farm per archives. Worth a CU look for sleepers + general confirmation. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following accounts are Confirmed to Dangshinuskevietenese:
- Kimyayun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Outdoort (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
From a technical standpoint, these accounts are Possible to Finrell ausi and Unrelated to Buckwheatflower. Mz7 (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the extremely unlikely coincidence of these users editing the same areas as confirmed socks—Dangshinuskevietenese following in the steps of Ionlee in Kim Go-eun (Korean article) and Outdoort following Xebralosangeles and Clipdeals in Kuruvi (Indian article)—I'll be blocking them as {{sockpuppet|Finrell ausi|proven}}. I would like to ask for second opinions on Buckwheatflower and the previously marked as unrelated Surozee; technical evidence isn't strong. There is a mountain of socks that was easy to catch, but other showings are poor despite what appears to be a concerning amount of behavioral overlap. A difficult puppeteer to squash? Ə XPLICIT 07:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 May I request [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] to review my discussions about The King Eternal Monarch in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CherryPie94#Reply_to_7th_email_about_The_King_Eternal_Monarch
-All I requested for was to make this page not look like another of countless bad press relating to this drama. I was a voracious reader of encyclopedias before the internet came along and had expected Wikipedia to have the same integrity. Instead, I am afraid it is being used as a tool to blacken entities. As long as the negativity conforms to rules, e.g. verifiable, it is allowed. There is no asking: of all the thousand information about the entity that we are trying to fit into this one page, is that information more important than the other information we are leaving out? Are we being fair to this entity? Is this negative information found in other entities that encountered the same issue? That second paragraph in The King Eternal Monarch page did not answer those questions thus I removed it. It will be noted that the budget is already mentioned in another portion of the page; highlighting it is malicious. The rest of the discussions was trying to arrive at a compromise - leave the negative paragraph in but adopt a less negative tone. In short, try to make it sound more like an encyclopedia than bad press.
+All I requested for was to make this page not look like another poorly-written criticism of this drama. I was a voracious reader of encyclopedias before the internet came along and had expected Wikipedia to have the same integrity. Instead, I am afraid it is being used as a tool to blacken entities. As long as the negativity conforms to rules, e.g. verifiable, it is allowed. There is no asking: of all the thousand information about the entity that we are trying to fit into this one page, is that information more important than the other information we are leaving out? Are we being fair to this entity? Is this negative information found in other entities that encountered the same issue? That second paragraph in The King Eternal Monarch page did not answer those questions thus I removed it. It will be noted that the budget is already mentioned in another portion of the page; highlighting it is malicious. The rest of the discussions was trying to arrive at a compromise - leave the negative paragraph in but adopt a less negative tone. In short, try to make it sound more like an encyclopedia than a tabloid.
 I have a full time job thus, so far, have only ever tried to intervene when I read Wiki pages that make me pause and ask those questions above; when I feel like I am reading a tabloid, not an encyclopedia.