Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sayerslle/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sayerslle

31 January 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Page history at Hilal Khashan shows a consistent pattern of editing, first by the registered user, then by constantly changing IP's to avoid WP:3RR infringements - Happysailor (Talk) 17:51, 31 January 2013 (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]
15 April 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

First time IP revert at Ghouta chemical attack days after User:Sayerslle blocked for edit warring on page, with IP edit summary - "RS… synth…" - clearly showing IP has experience editing on wikipedia. User has a very long history of blocks for disruptive editing on this topic. I have linked Sayerslle here and have made a note on their talk page with the hope they can defend themselves. Darouet (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

That edit was removing synthesis. We've now reached a new low: That anyone trying to fix neutrality problems must be a sock. bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobrayner: I believe you should start by reading here: What is a sockpuppet? Then you can continue with the SPI below. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • It's possible, but I'm not entirely convinced with just one diff. I semi-protected the page for 2 weeks to see if that might help. If the issue persists, please feel free to refile a case. Mike V • Talk 15:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
17 May 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

After a long dispute with Sayerslle, over a statement in the infobox at the Ghouta chemical attack article, here, here, here, here, here, ip 92.13.52.109 reverted the statement to "Sayerslles version" with this revert. Note the timestamp at 13:46. I Reverted at 13:55 with a reference to the talk page (see this discussion). 7 minutes later reverted Sayerslle my edit with this edit. I did not (and could not) revert him, do to the 1RR-rule. At the time I suspected that the ip was a sockpuppet, but didn't report it.

A year later, after no consensus could be reached for Sayerslles removal of Carla Del Pontes statement (see this discussion), ip 92.3.14.149 removed her statement again with this revert, calling it "synth", and asked what RS link her comments to Ghouta. I didn't report it, but Darouet did, ref, leading to a semi-protection of the page for 2 weeks. I did, however, reported him for breaking the 1RR-rule five days earlier, leading to a 4 months block.

Yesterday, a similar ip edit (ip 92.3.15.35) edited the article (diff), adding biased and disputed material, only loosely related to the subject, to the article. This time without any revealing text in the edit summary.

I find the behaviour very suspicious, but I can't prove it. I therefor request a full check of the user(s). Erlbaeko (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update:. A similar ip (92.3.6.130) just reverted Darouets attempt to condense the (all to long) lead at the Ghouta chemical attack article (compare with this and this diff). Same ip also re-added disputed information to the Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war page, ignoring the disussion on the talk page. No revealing text in the edit summary here neither. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2. Same pattern here. First an edit war (e.g. diff, diff and diff over: "He claimed that the Assad government used chemical weapons" vs. "He exposed the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.". Then a ip revert ( by 92.3.13.76), and then another ip revert (by 92.3.23.78) "wins". Erlbaeko (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update 3. Similar ip (92.3.8.53) just edited the Ghouta chemical attack article. See diff, diff and diff. Compare with diff, diff and diff.

 Looks like a duck to me. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final update:

  • On 15 June 2013, Behemoth removed text from the "Suspected perpetrators" section of the infobox in the Reyhanlı bombings article. The text was introduced by this edit on 21 May 2013. On 17 June 2013, a similar ip (92.13.89.124) re-add the text (diff). The same ip then changed the text and added a ref (diff and diff). Sayerslle edited the article from the day after the attack(diff), and he made the very first edit after the text was first introduced into the infobox (diff). Compare the ref-style in this diff with this diff.
  • On 24 March 2015, within one of Sayerslles block periods, a similar ip (92.3.3.229) added a new section about Liz Wahl on RTs talkpage (see Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Liz_Wahl and this diff). Compare with this diff.
  • On 5 May 2015, within Sayerslles last block period, a similar ip (92.3.5.86) added an External link (diff) to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict article. Compare with this diff.

Erlbaeko (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final update 2: Similar ip (92.3.28.195) just edited the Ghouta chemical attack article. See User contributions. Same ip-range. Same topic. Same impolite language. Same (mis)use of the infobox. Same low level on his personal attacks. Compare diff and diff with diff. I recommend indefinite semi-protection of the Ghouta chemical attack article (temporary semi-protection have been tried), and indefinite block on the sock-master (ip-range block is not possible, due to other users). Erlbaeko (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Final update 3: Similar ip (92.3.5.255) just edited the Ghouta chemical attack article, and also the Khan al-Assal chemical attack article. See User contributions. Same topic. Same style. Same bad habit of self-reverting personal attacks. Compare this diff with this diff.

This is not only a block evasion. It has been going on for years. Erlbaeko (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • There is nothing for a checkuser to do here, but whether or not this is block evasion the IP's themselves almost certainly represent the same individual. I think there is an excellent case for semi-protecting the relevant articles for the duration of the 1RR restriction, in order to enforce said restriction. VQuakr (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious socking activity here, also involving User:92.3.5.255 and possibly User:2601:e:1e05:545a:f0f2:781f:63ef:cba7, based on the history of Ghouta chemical attack. I support VQuakr's request for upping page protection, and I don't think full protection would be entirely unwarranted, considering the editing behavior of this SPI's nominator. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this Talk page comment, which is at least an acknowledgement that there is some connection between Sayerslle and the IP(s). I wouldn't rule out meat-puppetry, but I think block evasion is the likely scenario here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in case there was any lingering shade of doubt, IP has confirmed that he/she is Sayerslle. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is just a part of the discussion. The rest is here: old revision (At the end of the "Removal of Russian investigation from incident section".) It is removed from the talkpage, after a request on my talkpage by this diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
@Callanecc: Am I wrong, or did you just change his blockperiod from 4 to 3 months, based on this SPI? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. He added about 18 days to the block duration.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Oh sorry, my mistake. I guess this second SPI whitin his latest block period, added 18 days to his block period, then. What if he continues to "contribute" as an IP-editor. Is it any point to report it? Erlbaeko (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12 June 2015
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This is a clear sockpuppet of Sayerslle. The written style, which is very unique, is exactly the same. The areas of interest are the same, as well. I can provide detailed evidence if it is required, but it shouldn't be. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • I'm pretty baffled how this guy can go on edit warring and harassing when he is unblocked every once in a while. More worthy editors have been blocked indefinitely for less. He is a disruption-only account. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sayerslle - look at the edit history - that is not a 'disruption only' account - 'funkmonk' is an editor that lies routinely and seeks to harass editors who don't share his sectarian ideology off the site thats all- Animal Farm , one of the articles edited by the 'disruption only' account, contains a description of the pigs bullyng the other animals and that is wp pretty much - pig bullies dominate and sayerslle , having read his Orwell , is philosophical about this archetypal set-up , these 'sockpuppet' investigations are puffed up self important pathetic 'show trials' - 'Sayerslle' edited some talk pages as an ip- big deal - don't panic- the sky wont fall. what on earth are you so determined to silence? concentrate on content not editors. that is the point of the place. and don't lie funkmonk - you saying 'disruption only' is a lie - sayerslle edited many articles - your logic would mean it must all be deleted as disruption only - but you wont do that will you? you write a load of rubbish lies. 92.3.10.13 (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Continuous edit-warring and name-calling is disruption. If you're unable to grasp that, then the problem is obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
disruption ONLY you write-you are a liar - it is as much (more ) you who attack and continuous name-call 'cheerlead for nusrats' etc etc - if you're unable to grasp that, and your whole ideological world view suggests you are unable to see any bad on your 'side' , and are happy only to caricature and name-call, then the problem for those editors who happen to annoy you, is obvious. they will be harassed and persecuted. nauseating. it makes me vomit but I've had enough. wps reputation will suffer more and more I predict though as the bullypigs and spa/pov editors , and ignorant admins who collude with them endure while evidently good faith contributors fall away in disgust. 92.3.10.9 (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you pretty much confirm you are Sayer? That's all we need to know. Vanjagenije, I suggest you read the above. FunkMonk (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk note: @RGloucester: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: This IP should be blocked for three days for personal attacks against other editor, regardless of sockpuppetry. But, the question here is: whether the IP is operated by Sayerslle? If yes, than his block needs to be at least reset to new four months. I think it is safe to say that it is, indeed, Sayerslle. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanjagenije: In my view, if you believe the IP is Sayerslle, I would extend the master's block to indefinite. First, how persuaded are you? Second, why only four months? I haven't evaluated the merits myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: I said four months, because he was already blocked for four months on 29 May [1], and that block was still active when I posted the above comment. Now, I see that JamesBWatson blocked him indefinitely, which I think is OK. Since both the sock and the master are blocked, I'm closing the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I find Vanjagenije's comments surprising. Just how much more obvious would it need to be? Even a minute's glance at the history makes it clear, and a few minutes are enough to make it blindingly clear. Insisting on diffs was actually unhelpful, because it has forced RGloucester to tell the sockpuppeteer what sort of evidence gives the game away, and thus what to avoid next time. (Also, is it usual for clerks to tell administrators how long to block for? And where does the specific figure of 3 days come from?) I agree entirely with Bbb23, and have extended Sayerslle's block to indefinite. I have also blocked the IP addresses for a week. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JamesBWatson: What exactly is surprising? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @JamesBWatson: I have no strong objection to your extending Sayerslle's block to indefinite based on your (and Vanjagenije's) conclusions. However, I think it would have been better for you to offer your opinion in these circumstances rather than act unilaterally. You have blocked on your own in other SPIs, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but this is a special case. Vanjagenije is a non-admin clerk and in all respects acts as a clerk except that he cannot perform administrative actions and has to ask an administrator to do so. If he were an admin clerk, he could have just done what he thought best, and although any administrative action is subject to review, typically actions at SPI are not reviewed except perhaps after an unblock request. The main difference between Vanjagenije and a full clerk is that he's still classified as a clerk-trainee. For that reason sometimes I question him on his rationales and/or his reasoning. I do partly for the good of the project, of course, but also for his training. He's very amenable to constructive questions/suggestions/etc. So, to get back to your question: yes, it's normal for Vanjagenije to recommend a block or blocks and the durations. Thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, it seems I misunderstood the role of a clerk. Thanks to Bbb23 for clearing up my misunderstanding, and my apologies to Vanjagenije. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22 November 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Long banned user Sayerslle has regularly tried to continue offensive editing and edit warring on Syrian Civil War subjects from various IP addresses throughout N Wales ([2], [3], [4], [5], etc). IP contributions above ([6], [7], [8]) all refer to me and other editors as if they've known us a while, call us "fascists," "Russia" or "Putin lovers," and are full of the foul language that helped get Sayerslle banned. A rangeblock would be appreciated if that is possible. -Darouet (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Darouet (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2015 (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]

23 December 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Sayerslle just vandalized my user page. After being indeff'd for edit warring and being a generally crazy person, Sayerslle continues to believe that I (and Vladimir Putin) are his arch nemeses. This is documented in the investigations above but in case you're not sure, could someone block this IP as a vandal, irrespective of their relationship to Sayer, so they don't harass me? Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Darouet (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2015 (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]

26 December 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Only activity shows these are indeff'd user Sayerslle's vandal accounts ([9],[10]). Is it possible to 1) protect my user page so that only I can edit it and 2) get a range block on some of these IPs that Sayer is using? Thanks and happy Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. -Darouet (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Darouet (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2015 (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]

21 June 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same interests (Russian intervention in Syria), geolocates to Wales, same tone (personal attacks – diff, diff, diff), is not even denying it (diff). Tobby72 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

92.3.12.105 was blocked yesterday. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Please note that I've just removed more of the same trolling by IP 92.3.0.7 on the "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" talk page here. Same location and, as can be seen above, no attempt to hide the fact that they are one and the same user. It's extremely disruptive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP admitted that he is User:Sayerslle - [11]. I encouraged him to contact User:Bbb23 (blocking administrator) to discuss how he might be able to stop socking and possibly continue contributing to the project under certain editing restrictions (1RR, not commenting about other contributors anywhere or something else). I suggest to restore talk page access of Sayerslle to allow discussion or possibly a request to unblock. However, all of that is obviously on discretion of Bbb23 and other admins. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sayerslle has a dynamic IP, therefore it's difficult to track all of the 'contributions' he (I seem to recall that s/he is a he) has made. I've just added a couple more of the IP range activities. I do recall him as an editor, and can attest to the fact that he made useful contributions and would listen to other editors he felt agreed with him. What I also recall is that he would edit war and be uncivil towards anyone and everyone who didn't agree with his POV. I wasn't surprised by the fact of his eventual block. I can say that I was saddened by it as he always borderline constructive, but the balance lies in the WP:DE/WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:GRUDGE nature of his attitude towards editing. Someone as unrepentantly aggressive and adversarial as this editor is bad news for the project. He remains of the conviction that it's everyone else, not him, who is to blame, and that some good editing is enough for the community to tolerate the gloves off edit warring he was always prepared to engage in. Well, that's my 2¢. If anyone is prepared to review the block, I believe that all of his IP edits and attacks on other users need to be taken under consideration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is very wide range of IP addresses... He was able to contribute positively on a number of subjects at the beginning of his editing in the project. If I were an admin, my inclination would be to try to agree with him about editing under certain editing restrictions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23. Thank you for clarification! I think that is exactly what we needed here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His continued behaviour makes it clear that he is extremely far from being worth unblocking. Anyone really imagines he will change if he gets unblocked yet again? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I left him a message. Yes, sure, everyone can change to the better. And I think he is a good person. This is simply a difficult editing environment, especially for someone with certain moral values and hot temper. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's all just POV dreck and belligerent attitudes on talk pages/summaries, as 90% of his previous edits, there's little to gain. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not so based on his edit history [12]. He contributed positively in the beginning. However, this is pointless discussion. If he follows my advise, there will be no any further SPI discussions about this user. If he does not, I give up. As we all know, such users are problematic not because they open new accounts, but because they continue their crusades (on whatever subject), have difficulty interacting with other users, and so on. If any user can contribute positively without being in a permanent conflict with others (and this user definitely could), no one will ever block him. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

There's so many things wrong with this picture. I was not the blocking administrator. JamesBWatson was. Other than an earlier block, the only thing I did was to revoke Talk page access. Evading a block is not the way to get unblocked. If their Talk page wasn't inaccessible, they would simply file an unblock request. In this case, they would file an appeal with WP:UTRS (I don't know if they tried that). Despite what some have said in the archives, the range is not too large to block. I've blocked larger. Based on the admission by the master and the archives, I've blocked the range. The only thing I will do for the master after I close this case is to reinstate Talk page access so they can comment there if they wish. However, if they misbehave as they did last time, I will revoke it again. Also, it's fairly safe to assume that no one will agree to unblock them now based on the continuous block evasion. The best they can hope for is the standard offer of six months with no evidence of sock puppetry or block evasion during that time frame. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17 November 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Pinging the most recent admins involved, @Bbb23, JamesBWatson, and Vanjagenije: No investigation requested, just the same as before: Return to editing of the Ghouta article with the usual IP set, and knowledge of existing editors, e.g. "erlbaeko and his rancid pro-Fascist agenda of lies and PutinRussian garbage. [sic]" Rangeblock or article protection, if this is enough of a WP:DUCK for you? Let me know if not. P.S. Bbb23 sorry for my faux pas on the archive edit. Darouet (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also given this if you protect the article instead of a range block, perhaps you could temporarily protect my talk as well. -Darouet (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2016 (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]

Range block imposed. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

24 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Very frequent use of lowercase "imo"

Space before comma

  • Sayer: Not that hard to find either. A quick scan of the archives on T:SCW or Talk:Ghouta chemical attack, for example, would confirm this (only other user who does that frequently is Sopher99, also a sockpuppeteer, though not as frequently as Sayer). Here, for example, 25 out of 27 uses of " ," (excluding content list) are Sayer's. Here 12 out of 13 are Sayer's.
  • Dan: Ditto. Here all 7 of them are Dan's. Here all 9 of them are Dan's. Here all 12 of them are Dan's. Here all 16 of them are Dan's.

Single quotation marks (both rarely, if ever, use double quotations, especially when quoting fellow Wikipedians)

  • Sayer: There's literally a fuckton of those that you won't find through conventional search methods but are nevertheless found in almost every single discussion involving Sayer or Dan. (e.g. [15]; Ctrl+F is your friend)
  • Dan: Ditto (e.g. [16])

Insists on using the term "regime" instead of "government"

Use of "drivel" and "waffle" in the same comment

Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2019 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22 May 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP editing typical [19] Sayerslle hobby horse articles that are a part of the Syrian Civil War [20][21][22][23], and making their characteristic vandalisms to my user page [24] (see from before e.g. [25], [26], [27], [28]). It's inappropriate that a user long-banned for their conduct on these pages is taking the liberty to lead discussions on the topic, and harass other contributors, via IP. Help is appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Darouet (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added a link to an informative article about Syria, and then reverted the edit straight away because , whats the use? You are going out of your way to feel 'harassed' really. What other contributors has this IP 'harassed'? You make stuff up. 'take the liberty to Lead discussions'??!! wtf? 92.3.3.67 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2019 (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]

06 August 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Like User:Sayerslle, 78.144.95.235 edits exclusively on the topic of the Syrian Civil War [29]. Some of their edits and edit summaries have been redacted (e.g. [30] and two subsequent edits that I can't link to) on the page of User:Cambial Yellowing. A closely linked IP, 78.144.83.73, was recently blocked [31] for the same kind of abusive behavior as Sayerslle. Typical shorthand references to Putin [32] in edit summaries. User:El_C since it looks like you've been involved perhaps you'd be willing to investigate. -Darouet (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Darouet (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Darouet. I actually submitted this once before but apparently it was formatted wrong. I've added in another of the ip addresses above. The person admitted to being Sayerslle here and admitted they were a banned editor again here. Seem like a range block may be justified. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk: note that based on diffs added by Cambial Yellowing I've added User:Thingaboutit. I'll go make a note on their page ASAP. -Darouet (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: can something be done about the IPs? They have plainly admitted [33] or all but stated [34] that they are Sayerslle socks, as the behavioral evidence I noted above also shows. Please do let me know if there is uncertainty here in the IP connections to the sockmaster, if I need to provide further evidence, or if there is some other administrative issue I'm unaware of. -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The active IP is blocked (briefly) and the other two no longer appear active, so perhaps the request is no longer needed. -Darouet (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2019 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. no No comment with respect to IP address(es).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

30 October 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

As previously noted, two characteristics of Sayerslle's edits are to include a superfluous space before punctuation (comma, period) as Bulldog Antz has done here and here and here, and in their edit summaries here here and here. Cf. SPI for Dan the Plumber (24 Feb 2019). They continue to be belligerent (blocked by Bishonen for attacking me with their first edit), focused on questions related to Syria, Khan Shaykhun, Bellingcat, Tulsi Gabbard and her supporters (e.g. Jimmy Dore). They also display Sayerslle's penchant for typing "ffs" (e.g. edit summary here. Several of their contributions have had to be deleted. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:03, 30 October 2019 (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]
  • The punctuation thing is interesting, but looking through the histories of the named socks in the archive, I don't see it enough to think it's a defining characteristic. As for saying, "ffs", sadly, that also seems common enough in the general population that I can't call it significant. Also, Sayerslle goes more for IPs than sock accounts. Maybe blockable for disruption, or WP:CIVIL, or something along those lines, but I'm not convinced of socking based on the evidence presented here. I'll leave this open; somebody else may have another opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Immediately after being blocked as Bulldog Antz, Sayerslle has returned as The Bone Dorchester:

Common pages edited:

editor interaction analyser with last sock Bulldog Antz (4 common pages): §

editor interaction with previous sock Dan the Plumber (7 common pages): [35]

Distinctive signs:

  • Uses single quotes rather than double quotes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
  • adds spaces before punctuation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
  • aggressive or BLP-violating edit summaries: 1, 2, 3, 4

🌿 SashiRolls t · c 09:46, 4 December 2019 (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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sayerslle/Archive&oldid=1079616716"