Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GRanemos1/Archive

GRanemos1

GRanemos1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

23 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Koulog (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

GRanemos1 (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked in July 2023. Koulog (talk · contribs) was created in November 2023. Their contributions (I'm going on the contribs list here, not diffs) show a highly similar editing pattern. (a) Greek football articles exclusively, (b) mostly small changes:

Last 10 edits in article space by GRanemos1; +27, +82, +65, +2, −23, +75, +119, +23, +56
First 10 edits by Koulog: −82‎, −5, −43, +1, −23, +78, +5, +5, −54, +41

(c) no marking edits as minor even though they are, (d) no edit summaries – the only time they use edit summaries is when creating articles, in which case the edit summaries are identical: "Greek footballer", (e) Koulog already being warned by @User:GiantSnowman for lack of referencing, which was what led to GRanemos' ban, (f) both users following Greek B teams especially closely:

Koulog has created two articles; Elton Fikaj and Konstantinos Goumas, footballers for Panathinaikos B and PAOK B respectively.
I checked the players with high squad numbers at PAOK B, and all of them were created by GRanemos1: Vasilios Grosdis, Ermis Selimaj, Panagiotis Panagiotou, Georgios Koulouris, Vasilios Kitsakis, Dimitrios Kottas.
The 8 mentioned articles all have the same article structure and lack sources other than stats databases, a mode of article creation that has been depecrated.

In conclusion, my request is made since their behavior point to them being the same user. I'm not taking Whisper4444 (talk · contribs) into account since that user has been around much longer, but a similar behavior can be gleaned from the user contributions and the user talk page, which is pretty long with nothing but complaints. Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a DUCK to me, but a IP check would be sensible to confirm valid concerns. Good spot! Giant Snowman 15:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

@GiantSnowman: GRanemos1 is likely stale, would you like to request CU anyways in hopes there is something in the logs/non-public actions or just block behaviorally? — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just in case. Giant Snowman 19:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Additional information needed - The presented evidence is honestly pretty weak, since much of it is just normal behaviour for new editors. Short edits with no edit summary and not marked as minor, creating short stub articles, and occasionally running afoul of sourcing guidelines is all to be expected from someone still figuring things out. The rest boils down to Koulog being registered after GRanemos1 and sharing the same interest. Given Snowman's duck comment, I have to assume there's more to this. Please present it here. And since it's been brought up a few times, CheckUser tools won't tell us anything useful here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the requested evidence does not appear to be forthcoming I'm closing without further action. While there are obvious grounds suspicion, nothing presented here would allow me to distinguish between a sockpuppet and a legitimate new editor with the same interest as GRanemos1. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]