Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/It's gonna be awesome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deep humility (talk | contribs) at 05:07, 27 July 2020 (Comments by other users). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

It's gonna be awesome

It's gonna be awesome (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/It's gonna be awesome/Archive.


27 Jul 2020

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

This user promoted 6-hour day and cite "The root cause of developed countries' low birth rate is Eight-hour day, e.g. money-rich, time-poor, motherhood penalty." in his/her sandbox page. The same setance also appears on Woundful's previous user page. Woundful is a sockpuppet of It's gonna be awesome. (By the way, I try to search "The root cause of developed countries' low birth rate is Eight-hour day, e.g. money-rich, time-poor, motherhood penalty." in Google. There is not result.)

Woundful edited Six-hour day [1]. Six-hour day is also appeared in Deep humility's sandbox page User:Deep_humility/sandbox#6-hour_day

Woundful edited Money-rich,_time-poor [2]. it is also appeared in Deep humility's sandbox page User:Deep_humility/sandbox#Money-rich,_time-poor

Woundful said there is an advocacy concern about my edit in Chen_Yi-min [3]. It is similiar to (W) Stalking's behavoir [4]. (W) Stalking is another sockpuppet of It's gonna be awesome.--Wolfch (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • False narrative, WP:fishing, and m:CheckUser_policy:The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position). --Deep humility (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments