| Revision as of 00:08, 4 December 2017 editRochelimit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,507 edits →Comments by other users← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:02, 4 December 2017 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,642 edits →Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: more commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| *{{Endorse}} - I'm convinced there's enough here for checks at least; <s>Phamtson seems like a duck case without CU</s>, still considering the rest. Thanks, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·'''  ] '''·'''  ]) 20:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC) <small>Struck duck part. Was rushed and did not consider to same extent as full recommendation for admin action. I do still believe the endorsement was correct, considering the low visibility of the articles in question. Thanks, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·'''  ] '''·'''  ]) 21:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)</small> | *{{Endorse}} - I'm convinced there's enough here for checks at least; <s>Phamtson seems like a duck case without CU</s>, still considering the rest. Thanks, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·'''  ] '''·'''  ]) 20:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC) <small>Struck duck part. Was rushed and did not consider to same extent as full recommendation for admin action. I do still believe the endorsement was correct, considering the low visibility of the articles in question. Thanks, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·'''  ] '''·'''  ]) 21:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :*{{re|L235}} I'll leave this endorsed for the moment in case another CU sees things differently, but I don't see enough evidence to run a check, let alone to take any action without a check. A check is particularly unappealing against a long-time editor, {{U|Rochelimit}} (I'm deliberately pinging them because in this instance I believe they should be notified), without a higher level of proof. I also see little disruption caused by these events - more like a tempest in a teapot. Finally, it's ironic that the three editors (Rochelimit, Hijiri88, and Phamtson) all commit grammatical errors in the museum article.--] (]) 21:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | :*{{re|L235}} I'll leave this endorsed for the moment in case another CU sees things differently, but I don't see enough evidence to run a check, let alone to take any action without a check. A check is particularly unappealing against a long-time editor, {{U|Rochelimit}} (I'm deliberately pinging them because in this instance I believe they should be notified), without a higher level of proof. I also see little disruption caused by these events - more like a tempest in a teapot. Finally, it's ironic that the three editors (Rochelimit, Hijiri88, and Phamtson) all commit grammatical errors in the museum article.--] (]) 21:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::*I'm adding a few more comments before I forget them. First, let's rule out Fdkgh 8475dir geo9utskdj completely. Their only edit was vandalism to an article created by Rochelimit. As for the other three, let's discuss socking first. The best copy edits were by Ollinilsson and EmilyHauer. If Rochelimit's copy edits are so deficient, how could he operate accounts with good grammar? Phamtson's copy edits were not great. Why would Rochelimit operate an account that does mediocre copy edits? Theoretically, he can do that with his own account. As to meat puppetry, let's assume the three editors are friends of Rochelimit. As meat puppetry goes, it's pretty tame to ask friends to ''improve'' articles. It's actually constructive. Plus, a CU would not likely be able to demonstrate meat puppetry through location. Rochelimit is undoubtedly editing from Indonesia. It wouldn't be surprising, given the articles, that the others are as well. If another CU doesn't pick up on this by tomorrow, I will be closing this with no action.--] (]) 02:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ||
Revision as of 02:02, 4 December 2017
Rochelimit
Rochelimit (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Rochelimit/Archive.
03 December 2017
– An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.
Suspected sockpuppets
- Phamtson (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Ollinilsson (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- EmilyHauer (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Fdkgh 8475dir geo9utskdj (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Last month I tagged a couple of articles by Rochelimit as needing copyediting, and when he removed one of the tags inappropriately I told him he should ask someone else to do the copy-editing. Immediately thereafter, several new accounts (all SPAs or near-SPAs) showed up and started editing these articles (which were all newly-created and on fairly obscure topics). When I asked Rochelimit about it, he said he knew nothing about it and that it must just be a coincidence, but this seems incredibly unlikely, and the fact that the new accounts mysteriously stopped showing up (and that the ones that had already shown up stopped editing) after my message to Rochelimit supports the idea that they are connected.
Requesting CU since I believe they might be sock accounts created by Rochelimit to create the illusion that other editors were making the edits that I had said it was a bad idea for him to make (and he stopped using them when I clarified that I meant for him to use the GCE), but if they are meatpuppets (specifically off-wiki friends or relatives) then they would probably still geolocate to the same part of the world and CU can check that.
I recognize the possibiliy that one of the four accounts, EmilyHauer (talk · contribs) (the only non-SPA, who actually made twelve apparently unrelated edits before editing a Rochelimit article), is unconnected to the other three and to Rochelimit, but it seems at least as likely that it is related to the apparent sock-farm that mysteriously appeared on this article last month as that it has no relation to any sockpuppetry. There is also the fact that Fdkgh 8475dir geo9utskdj (talk · contribs) actually showed up before I told Rochelimit about "asking someone else", though not before I had tagged the article as needing work.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: FWIW, I didn't introduce any grammatical errors to the article: I reverted an edit that had removed some grammatical errors but introduced others, and had removed the maintenance tag despite this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: flank -> flanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: The diff you cite is me reverting an edit that did fix some errors, but introduced others, and was overall disruptive because of the removal of the maintenance tag. I don't feel it's appropriate to blankly revert an edit that might have had some positive effects, so I made some effort to keep the positive fixes, but I won't take responsibility for accidentally re-introducing another user's error because I just happened to miss one of the fixes. In my experience most users would simply blank-revert, without making any effort to ensure they weren't reintroducing errors. This diff shows the changes from before I ever touched the article to the revert (i.e., the ones I noticed and actively chose not to revert), and "flanks" is not there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: flank -> flanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I feel very sad by this accusation. Apparently Hijiri did not trust me. Is it okay to feel upset by this? I hope i will not be accused wrongly because i dont do sock/meat. :(((( --Rochelimit (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Clerk endorsed - I'm convinced there's enough here for checks at least; Phamtson seems like a duck case without CU, still considering the rest. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Struck duck part. Was rushed and did not consider to same extent as full recommendation for admin action. I do still believe the endorsement was correct, considering the low visibility of the articles in question. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @L235: I'll leave this endorsed for the moment in case another CU sees things differently, but I don't see enough evidence to run a check, let alone to take any action without a check. A check is particularly unappealing against a long-time editor, Rochelimit (I'm deliberately pinging them because in this instance I believe they should be notified), without a higher level of proof. I also see little disruption caused by these events - more like a tempest in a teapot. Finally, it's ironic that the three editors (Rochelimit, Hijiri88, and Phamtson) all commit grammatical errors in the museum article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm adding a few more comments before I forget them. First, let's rule out Fdkgh 8475dir geo9utskdj completely. Their only edit was vandalism to an article created by Rochelimit. As for the other three, let's discuss socking first. The best copy edits were by Ollinilsson and EmilyHauer. If Rochelimit's copy edits are so deficient, how could he operate accounts with good grammar? Phamtson's copy edits were not great. Why would Rochelimit operate an account that does mediocre copy edits? Theoretically, he can do that with his own account. As to meat puppetry, let's assume the three editors are friends of Rochelimit. As meat puppetry goes, it's pretty tame to ask friends to improve articles. It's actually constructive. Plus, a CU would not likely be able to demonstrate meat puppetry through location. Rochelimit is undoubtedly editing from Indonesia. It wouldn't be surprising, given the articles, that the others are as well. If another CU doesn't pick up on this by tomorrow, I will be closing this with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Categories: