Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finrell ausi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 17:25, 24 June 2020 (Signing comment by Lizzydarcy2008 - "→Comments by other users: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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. ƏXPLICIT 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: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzydarcy2008 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC) May I request 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[reply]

All I requested for was to make this page not look like another of countless bad press relating to this drama. If you notice, the only other edit I attempted years ago was of a similar nature, when I saw a similar attack on another entity, a negative remark that was not included in pages of other entities that had the same issue. 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 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 had the same issue? This is the reason I removed that paragraph. The rest of the conversation was trying to arrive at a compromise - leave the negative paragraph in but employ a less negative tone. In short, try to make it sound more like an encyclopedia than bad press.

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Finrell_ausi&oldid=964293046"