Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/פעמי-עליון

פעמי-עליון

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

11 May 2024[edit]

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

מתיאל (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

Similar low-level usage of accounts. Similar edit summary language and style. More importantly, significant article editing overlap [1]. Particularly as they seem to be using the two accounts to edit war and revert the same edits in the same article [2] and [3] barely few days apart. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

@Bbb23: The editor interaction utility seems pretty overwhelming evidence for two accounts that are barely active on en.wiki, especially considering the reverts done on the exact same edit linked above. I can't see the differences in communication skills; in the edit summaries at least. I think this should be reconsidered. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Unless the suspected sock is doing a remarkable job of pretending they can't speak English, the differences in communication skills are rather startling. In addition, although it doesn't preclude socking, the master has over 30,000 edits at Commons and almost 13,000 edits at he.wiki. Closing without action. As an aside, this was misfiled: the suspected sock was created before the suspected master. Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mars Roberge, and this related discussion at ANI. Somewhere else, the suspected sock actually asked to be tutored in English. There are other indicators as well. Apparently, the suspected sock acknowledged at least some paid/COI editing. The master uses the visual editor, whereas the sock does not. The sock marks a lot of edits as minor, not true with the master. Finally, the page intersection is hardly "overwhelming". They've intersected on a handful of pages. They did support each other, though, as you say, not just once but at least twice. Given their understandable interests in certain topics, that is not very surprising. If a clerk disagrees with my closure, at a minimum a CU should be requested.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]