Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bender235/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Bender235

Bender235 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))
25 September 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Sniffer3282 (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users[edit]

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

No evidence presented by a new editor with only two edits to their name, one here and one warning Cyphoidbomb. Who's the sockpuppet here? --AussieLegend () 08:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

20 December 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Bender235's editing pattern/style, edit summaries, talk page comments looks quite similar to Edward321 and Deor. Edward321 seems as the account which is used only for "reverting other users edits" purpose, in order to avoid 3RR rule. All 3 accounts edit mainly historical articles, and the articles of living and deceased people. Bender235 seems concentrated on BLPs and Deor seems concentrated on "rubbish" tasks such as adding coordinates, tagging, reverting other users' edits, removing red links etc. Edward321 seems concentrated on reverting. It is not easy to provide the best diffs which support these 3 account's being used by the same person; to me just looking at edit summaries provide too many proofs, nevertheless I provide these diffs from talk:atlantis: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. If investigating admin/checkuser requests more, I'll try my best to dig more and find some more diffs. Logos (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Edward321 If I was aware of the investigation about Platonics beforehand, this investigation could be a "retaliation" indeed. However, I'm not that energetic to pursue such retaliatory professions. Digging out 3 different accounts' diffs is quite cumbersome. Logos (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad:I guess edit count should not be a factor normally, as there is something called automated editing. Anyway. Logos (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users[edit]

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

I have informed Bender and Doer of this investigation, since Logos failed to do so or inform me. Logos' differences show that Deor, Bender, and I have all edited the Atlantis talk page, nothing more. I suspect this sockpuppet investigation may be retaliatory for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Platonics. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Edward321: thanks for the notice. I find this very amusing. --bender235 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Rejected Your accusing an editor of 200k edits that they have sockpuppeted with a 25k edit account, and a 80k edit administrative account all on the basis of editng the same talkpage, and the edit summaries of the diffs provided don't even show a pattern for the edit summaries. Besides administrative sockpuppetry being out of our scope, and we can't handle this case (that's the Arbitration Committee's job), you need proof to file an investigation which this case lacks. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Logos: Im aware of automated editing, i run my own bot. I have to disagree about edit count not being a factor. Its very hard (dare I say impossible) to hide a sockpuppet over 300,000 edits. Similair topic areas, same viewpoints on talkpages, same enforcement areas show. And it makes it possible to identify a sock. These are long term contributors, and the evidence you present is that they just edit the same page. Well I edit SPIs like you do. Does that mean im your sock? The burden of proof is on the filer, not the accused or the investigator. You also need to present a plausible theory as to why they are breaking policy to do this. If you can provide that, we can look into the non-admin side. But I have a feeling that you will find difficulties in doing so. -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 19:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

---

17 January 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Bender235's editing pattern/style, edit summaries, talk page comments looks very similar to Edward321, as well as his activity on the Atlantis talk page history. to me just looking at edit summaries provide too many proofs especially in regards to Atlantis, nevertheless I provide these diffs from talk:atlantis: [8] [9], [10]. Black Murray (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Black Murray, help me understand this, you believe a user with over 318,000 edits since 2004 has also been operating another account since 2006 and has accumulated an additional almost 30,000 edits? Also, your second diff is for an edit made by Deor, are you also claiming that account is also operated by Bender? I find this a very hard to believe. You will need to provide a lot more evidence if you think this is going to go anywhere. -- GB fan 21:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Black Murray's accusations use extremely similar wording to Logos' accusations from December of 2014.[11] Edward321 (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Symbol merge vote.svg Symbol support2 vote.svg Checkuser requested and endorsed by clerk - Can a checkuser check the case filer? The account was registered yesterday, and I don't think he is new. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't have time to sort through this at the moment, but I just blocked
Black Murray (talk · contribs),
Jon Donnis Rome Viharo with an ectoplasm on top (talk · contribs),
AncientBritons (talk · contribs), AlahAkbarAllah (talk · contribs), and
Hettydetty (talk · contribs).
Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham get in there my son (talk · contribs), JonathanJoshy (talk · contribs), CritiasAtlantis (talk · contribs), TonyDunkersANTIFA (talk · contribs), PlayingTOMBRAIDER (talk · contribs), and Cadfaelite (talk · contribs) were already blocked, all but one by Future Perfect at Sunrise. ​​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with the sockfarm, but per Tiptoety's comment in the archives from last June, Per edits at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/bender235, I'd say that the odds are pretty good. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • My tag was because FPaS wrote in the block notice this was a probably sock. I know for sure AP's been socking recently. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah. Look at the contributions to this article]. We have AP, then BookWorm44, the OldScrolls, then MacRitchieFan, all AP?GoblinFace socks. So yes, the 2 new ons are also AP socks. Someone with spare time needs to sort out the GoblinFace/AP thing. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I won't be able to run any checks before next Wednesday, so unless another CU wants to take a look, you might as well close this and copy the results over to the AP case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    Copied and closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)