Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INeverCry/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


INeverCry

07 August 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]
  • User:INeverCry/common.js has the exact userscript and same catALotPrefs as User:Daphne Lantier/common.js (plus one or two more).
  • Their userpages on enwp are both “framed” and has a image and userboxes centered.
    • Both users has userboxes for “time on Wikipedia”, “WikiProject Poetry”, “WikiProject Women's Sport”, “WikiProject Women writers”, “WikiProject Russia”, “WikiProject Ireland”, “enjoys reading fiction” and “enjoys reading poetry”.
  • On Commons both users are administrators, and both users tend to always close deletion requests using the default reason “Deleted: per nomination.” without any more info.
  • The users do a lot of edits each on Commons, but despite the massive amount of edits made by the users, they are never editing within minutes of each other.
    • On 21 March 2017 INC decided to take a break from Commons. Earlier that day both users edited “User talk:INeverCry”. One user wrote to the other user, and the other responded. During the time it took to respond, the other user did not edit Commons.
  • Both users remove images from userpages on enwp using the edit summary “abandoned account” (case sensitively the same even)[1][2], to later create a deletion requests on Commons using the same rationale “out of [[COM:SCOPE|scope]] — unused personal image”.[3][4] There is no tool which makes such a rationale, but it is a personally written reason. The fact that both users uses te same edit summary rationale to remove an image from a userpage on enwp, and then uses the same deletion rationale on Commons as each other is highly {{Duck}} behavior for me.
  • Both users uses the same edit summary "[[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]] tagging when adding poject tags to talk pages, which might indicate that both users et the same "autocomplete" edit summaries.
    • Both users has used the template redirect {{WPWW}} when doing so (see Edit summary search), indicating they are doing similar edits, with exactly the same edit summary.

These are just some behavioral similarities I've collected and summarized in one hour. Requesting a CU to fiind out if there is any technical similarities between the two users as well. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an SPI clerk hasn't endoresed this (or CU hasn't competed a check) by tomorrow (after work), I'll try and add more similarities. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Hi, long time reader, first time commenter. Unless I am missing something, there is no reason that I can see that would allow a check user here on English Wikipedia. There is no disruption, or anything else that I can see, from either of the two editors in question here on this Wikipedia project. I am failing to see what the issue is here on this project. Any concerns should be taken to Commons, given the apparent issues as given by Josve05a seem to be there. 58.6.79.192 (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please check for sleepers per this edit by INeverCry “No worries. I've got other accounts I can use.”   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • [5] may or may not be of interest/relevance. It's a low traffic article with 50 edits going back more than 4 years. Nick (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @58.6.79.192 The only issue here on English Wikipedia would be potential double voting in an RfA, as would have occurred in Cullen328's recent RfA (if the allegations of sockpuppetry were to be proven here). The full list of interactions can be found here for reference. Nick (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this should be investigated elsewhere, and by Stewards or the Ombudsman rather than English Wikipedia checkusers. This is a sensitive issue. Daphne Lantier is a Commons administrator (as am I) and has OTRS access, INeverCry is a former English Wikipedia administrator and Commons administrator, and Josve05a is also a Commons administrator. Nick (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this involves enwiki and commons, no steward involvement is necessary. But I would recommend that whatever CheckUser ends up looking at this request liaise with their counterparts on commons. The Ombudsmen are for investigations of CU/OS tool use, and wouldn't have any scope of action here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I am investigating this. Clerks, please let it be for now. Courcelles (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 August 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Reported at Commons RfCU; consider also the pretty much identical userpage formats. Given INC's claim of more accounts, can we do a sleeper check please? ansh666 02:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - To compare this account to the previous 2 and find sleepers, as per the master's explicit admission. Evidence:
  • Similar signature, userpage format, and interests, as noted
  • Over 60 overlaps, as per EIA, including:

Thanks, GABgab 04:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Self disclosure Nick (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

05 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Blocked on Commons as a sock of INeverCry - see commons:User:Kolya Magnitsky. Account was active at en.wiki in September, after INeverCry was indef blocked. Both accounts have been active at Afanasy Fet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the number of Commons socks listed at commons:Category:Sockpuppets of INeverCry I suggest a CheckUser check would be a good idea to both confirm this one and see if there are any en.wiki sleepers.

Some of those other Commons socks are not blocked on en.wiki and have been active here, but not since 2015 at the latest, so I haven't bothered with those. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

25 March 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

On Commons, this user was blocked as a sock of INC, see this. SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional bare evidence to clarify, this and this with the similar "smiley" template edits. SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

03 April 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

New account, immediately jumps into recategorising in articles; cf. INC's category work (ctrl+F "Category"). Also note both accounts working on comedians, stand-ups, etc. As for the name; well. INC isn't exactly shy when it comes to self-satire. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 13:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before I saw your post, I got an e-mail from an astute editor saying the same thing. Now that I know and based on more than the logs, I can say it's very  Likely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Copied to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JP8077 and closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13 May 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Possible diversion to sow confusion about identity of an otherwise unrelated puppeteer. The SPI on Commons (see for detailed rationale) was inconclusive. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Michele59massa5959okqwokqwokokqw is globally locked, and Michelemassa4 has not edited at en.wiki. This is a kind of forum shopping, and there is no reason to recheck the Commons CU's inconclusive results. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/INeverCry/Archive&oldid=841304543"