Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Makumbe/Archive

Makumbe

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

24 September 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility

LargelyRecyclable has stated that they are a new account of someone with over ten years experience with Wikipedia [1].

Based on behavioural evidence, I believe that this is an alternate account for Makumbe (talk · contribs) which is being used to continue a dispute. As such, it does not qualify for WP:CLEANSTART.

My concerns are:

Since being created on 20 September 2017 LargelyRecyclable's editing has been almost entirely focused on disputing two articles which have been heavily edited by K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), Panzerschlachten and Rommel myth. Makumbe has engaged in similar disputes concerning the Panzer ace article (as one of the three articles they've focused on in their Wikipedia career), which K.e.coffman also heavily edited (for instance, [2], [3], [4]
Makumbe threatened to tag bomb the Panzer ace article shortly after they first edited it [5] [6]. LargelyRecyclable did this to the Panzerschlachten article as literally their first article-space edit [7], and followed up with similar heavy tagging of the Rommel myth article the next day [8]. They then engaged in an edit war to try to preserve the tags in the Rommel myth article when another editor removed them for being excessive ([9], [10]), which led to a warning [11]
Makumbe has repeatedly claimed that the Panzer ace article is WP:COATRACK [12] [13], [14]. LargelyRecyclable has made the same claim regarding the Rommel myth article [15], [16], [17] and the Panzerschlachten article [18], including as some of their early edits
Makube has disputed the use of the widely-published historian Stephen Zaloga to support material not narrowly focused on tanks in the Panzer ace article [19], [20]. LargelyRecyclable has posted almost identical comments concerning this historian in the Rommel myth article [21]
Makube has engaged in personal attacks on myself and K.e.coffman [22], [23]. LargelyRecyclable has done the same [24], [25]
More broadly, I think that reviewing the discussions at Talk:Panzer ace and Talk:Rommel myth demonstrates that the two accounts have a very similar combative style of commenting on articles and responding to other editors.
Regarding LargelyRecyclable's statement that they have over ten years experience at Wikipedia, I note that Makube's first edit was in December 2006 [26].

I think that the connection is demonstrated per WP:DUCK by the above, but have tagged this as requesting a checkuser in case the reviewing admin would prefer further evidence. I would have no problem with a clerk removing the tag if they judge it unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a further example since the report was lodged:

On 28 August Makube argued that Stephen Zaloga's book 'Armoured Champion' doesn't support the material attributed to it in the Panzer Ace article [27]. On 29 September LargelyRecyclable made an edit removing some of the material noted by Mabube from that article on exactly those grounds [28] Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further example:

[29] - in these string of edits to the Panzer Ace article LargelyRecyclable tagged statements in the lead which are later referenced as needing citations, tagged a scholarly book published by Cambridge University press as being an unreliable source, tagged a reference to a book by Stephen Zaloga as being dubious and attempted to repeat the edit above. All of this is consistent with the edits by Makube concerning this article, including the threats of extensive tagging and seeking to remove references to Stephen Zaloga. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't the place to litigate but your posts here grossly mischaracterize my edits. It's gotten to the point of maliciousness. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hi- This is Makumbe (Jeff Thurston). I see I have been accused of being a sock puppet with another user name. I welcome any investigation into this and am 100% sure that this will be resolved. I am not a sock puppet.Makumbe (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an issue of content gatekeeping that's grasping at straws. I'm not Makumbe and my account is in compliance. Happy to answer any questions. In line with FREASHSTART, if a CU is done I'd prefer results be keep private. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request an expedition of this if at all possible. I'm being hounded by the requester and having my substantive edits arbitrarily removed.[30][31] I'd very much like to close this matter. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The two accounts are Unlikely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Closing with no action. Sro23 (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]