Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScrupulousScribe/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ScrupulousScribe

22 January 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I hesitated to file this because I wanted to AGF, but I can no longer ignore it. I suspect ScrupulousScribe is the puppetmaster and Dinglelingy is the sock. Here is my behavioral evidence:

  • Both edit COVID related articles, such as Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Both push COVID conspiracy theories, such as the "lab leak theory"
  • Dinglelingy has a pattern of editing to support ScrupulousScribe in debates.
  • Dinglelingy has a pattern of editing when ScrupulousScribe is blocked or topic banned, and not editing often at other times.
  • Both are extremely verbose. Dinglelingy today made an ANI post that took up 7 screens on my PC. ScrupulousScribe also writes very long posts and replies.
  • Dinglelingy has a very good knowledge of policy for an editor with 52 edits, and links to it in debates. He also knows about ANI somehow.
  • Multiple editors have gently hinted that they suspect Sockpuppet behavior, including User:Britishfinance, User:WaltCip, User:Alexbrn.

Here are my diffs:

  • Editing when ScrupulousScribe is blocked (2021-01-05 17:43 PST, for 24 hours), in the exact same conspiracy debate SS was in, taking over right where he left off: [1][2][3][4]
  • Coming back from a 9 day wikibreak as soon as ScrupulousScribe gets topic banned from "lab leak theory": [5][6]
  • Starting two ANI's about sockpuppetry accusations isn't a smoking gun, but I find it suspicious enough to mention. His over-reacting to some hints of sockpuppetry remind me of what police officers call a "spontaneous utterance". It appears to be on his mind more than it should be for an innocent person. [7][8]

I request CheckUser to put this to bed for good. This editor/these editors are, in my opinion, WP:SEALIONS and take up an incredible amount of editor time. There is an enormous thread at WP:ANI that just closed, and one of these editors just re-opened it and is trying to start the debate over again.

If I missed anything, please feel free to add to this report. If you need more diffs, please let me know. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. This is nonsense, Novem_Linguae has never assumed good faith. In my original complaint he was the first person suggesting I be banned for no reason.

""I also support investigating this user's sockpuppet behavior. I also support a topic ban for Dinglelingy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)"

Now that he gets named in my complaint he rushes to open an SPI filled with baseless claims.

As to a '9 day break', I said I would respond to admins as I was tired of repeating myself and of the off topic discussion. I commented when my ANI was summarily closed. Per policy I questioned the admin who closed my ANI and followed his suggestion for review which requires opening another ANI. There is nothing nefarious about this, its wikipedia policy and has nothing to do with user SS except for the tarring of my account with his.

The diffs and 'patterns' included are absurd and do nothing to support the 'behavior' analysis. My complaints about sockpuppetting accusations were not due to 'gentle hints', they are detailed in my ANI.

I will note that finally someone is following policy and lodging an SPI. I welcome the inquiry, it should have happened a long time ago instead of what happened, hence my ANI.Dinglelingy (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably not a sock of ScrupulousScribe (in my subjective view), but likely a sock of some kind, as admins have suggested. A full and open disclosure of any alt-accounts Dinglelingy has used might help here, as WP:SCRUTINY is important. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not hinted, gently or otherwise, that Dinglelingy is a sock of ScrupulousScribe, and made a statement at ANI proving Dinglelingy's accusations that I called them a sock are baseless. I do think that Dinglelingy is a returning user, and Alexbrn's comment re WP:SCRUTINY could be appropriate given their conduct at ANI. Britishfinance (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is ridiculous. Novem Linguae is accusing both I and Dinglelingy of promoting a particular issue as a "conspiracy theory", when multiple reliable sources are calling that particular issue a "controversy". The BBC just published a piece calling it "one of the biggest scientific controversies of our time". If editors like Novem Linguae will continue to attempt to discredit us as editors by calling us conspiracy theorists, then they are the ones who should be investigated for misconduct. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disputes about the lab leak scenario have plagued WIV etc. for like 9 months, with dozens of aggressive, verbose editors rotating through to argue its validity. You could take probably any two accounts of users promoting these fringe ideas and find a lot of behavioral overlap, so I find it highly doubtful this particular alleged master-puppet pair is legitimate. However, it's pretty likely at least SS is a returning user based on their early contribs and familiarity with policy, and given how many accounts have been blocked/banned from COVID-19 topics it may be worth investigating other links. JoelleJay (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with JoelleJay, there's been a lot of disruption in the topic area by many accounts who are clearly unrelated and there's no reason to assume sockpuppetry here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - despite the different ages of the accounts, both started editing regularly on 5th Jan, and their editing interests and styles display many similarities. GirthSummit (blether) 18:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated with regard to Dinglelingy and ScrupulousScribe. There's nothing in the checkuser evidence that shows Dinglelingy to be a sock or alt account. I obviously can't rule out that they are a returning account of someone, and possibly other checkusers will see something I missed, but I see no evidence of this. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clerks, as I'm relatively new to the checkuser tools, feel free to reopen if you'd like a second set of eyes. I'm totally confident on the two accounts being unrelated in this case. --Yamla (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

25 March 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Pro forma @Maxim: Drmies said you might have an interest in this... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:56, 25 March 2021 (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]

01 April 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Created 6 days after WanderingEskimo was blocked and jumped right into a discussion at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, citing WP:STONEWALL in their second edit (also feuding with RandomCanadian, which WanderingEskimo had done here), similar writing style to scribe (sort of long-winded), both use American spelling. This is however a contentious topic area, so I can't completely exclude the possibility that it's someone else. Blablubbs|talk 18:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Accusing other editors of stonewalling? Check. Bludgeoning the procees? Check. Deflecting and showing a lack of understanding of WP policy despite taking the time to cite them? Check. Being way too suspicious for a two day old account? Check. Editing in one specific topic area? Check. !Voting on the RfC which has long since been dormant? Check. If this isn't SS then it's either someone canvassed here from a twitter thread or another form of meat puppet. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • This case is being reviewed by Blablubbs as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
    CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk – please compare this one to the other accounts and look for sleepers. Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 18:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blablubbs, I can only confirm that there are no other accounts, and that the editor has been doing this stuff while logged out also. I can also confirm that geolocation etc. are no match. Now, there may be VPN or whatever happening here, but that's above my pay grade. Maxim, I made an entry on the CU wiki (Wikipedia/en/ScrupulousScribe), but there's nothing here that I can do anything with. That this new editor is not a new editor is clear, and they may well be meat, but a block will have to be placed based on behavior. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated technically. Neither is on a VPN. Different continents here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this is clearly not a new user, I'm slightly surprised that they don't come up as related to any other accounts, but as I noted in the filing, meatpuppetry or canvassing are a real possibility given the topic area. I don't see enough here to block for that, though; closing with no further action taken. Blablubbs|talk 22:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05 April 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

(for the first one) Little to no edit outside of the topic. Similar harassment to previous socks. Account name... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:26, 5 April 2021 (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
InverseZebra (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
CatDamon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
CutePeach (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15 April 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

DUCK level similar edits to previous confirmed socks (compare with Special:Contributions/WanderingEskimo). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • RandomCanadian's activism on the lab leak has been shared widely on Twitter and anyone who contributes on the topic is immediately accused of being SS's sock. RandomCanadian is also prone to delete other editors' comments on the topic of the lab leak, in violation of WP:TPO. And no, I am not a sock of SS. LegitimateHeir (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note how RandomCanadian above calls a new user a "SPA from the first edit" just because they contributed on his favourite topic with a POV he didn't like. LegitimateHeir (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 May 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


see Gain of function research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), started by ScrupulousScribe and now edited with similar boosterism by the similarly-named AvidTyper. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

The other editor DGG said there is nothing fringe in the edits I made. My edits added content and sources to the article. I am not an SPA or SOCK. AvidTyper (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you object to the edits I made? If so, why don't you say so on the talk page. No one has explained the problem with my edits that were reverted. AvidTyper (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Similarly-named? Saying that a username consisting of an adjective and a synonym for "writer" are similar to each other seems a bit far-fetched, especially since this is a website where people create accounts to, well, write! Unless I've missed something? EditorInTheRye (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're all just gonna have to keep an eye on this one. But from my cursory glances at the user's edits on the article, they're not malicious, maybe just uninformed. I have a personal plan to revamp the article (and I happen to be a subject matter expert on the topic), so I will happily keep an eye on it and raise ire if it looks like block evasion again.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ScrupulousScribe/Archive&oldid=1138679254"