Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pestophagous/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pestophagous

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

21 November 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Waglutapi is the oldest account, but is quite stale. Updating: Thiyopa is the oldest account that I've found so far, and it chronologically overlaps most of the others, with a first edit on March 5, 2008 and most recent on October 8, 2021. After being warned about COI and listed here, they've gone dark. Clear agenda of all accounts is to promote a self-published dictionary, discussion forum and website they run. This is an astroturfing sockdrawer.

Pesto is the newest. The most edits have been done by 89.176.230.207 - the verbose IP that has been warned at talk and at ANI. 109.80.168.206 edited Waglutapi's talk page comments,[1] basically admitting that one. Under 89.176.230.207 they also said repeatedly that they'd "been editing Wikipedia for years" but refused to disclose the other accounts or IPs, and said they'd "stick to this one for a while", indicating they can switch IPs at will, so checkuser is not useful here. No matter. The quacking is plenty loud.

Pattern is to repeatedly insert, as an article source, a link to a verbose message board opinion rant by a rando (actually, the "rando" poster is the owner of the website and the author of the citespam the accounts are adding), misrepresenting it as the work of multiple "scholars", "sources" or "Lakota speakers"; all plural (and there are strong indications the rando is our sockmaster themselves). Then he uses IPs and now socks to return the link to the article as an inline cite after others remove it. Then when that repeatedly failed, and the message board went private, he repeatedly posted an archived version of the comment on the talk page.

After being warned about WP:LOUTSOCK, by multiple established users, at IP talk for the main IP and at ANI, today he is back once again with a new sock account. At the Teahouse as 89.176.230.207, he denied being any of the socks that were active at that point. "I never used any other IP than this one, or any named account, to make any edit to the article, its talk page". Just now Pesto denied socking, as well. "I'm not sure what I could do to prove that I am not the same editor as the person from October, but I'm not that person." So, this is not a lost password situation, it is deception.

I think there is plenty now to just block him myself, but as he's used a few accounts and IPs now, I think we want a paper trail so admins can just start adding the obvious socks as they are obvious.

Diffs

All diffs contain user posting same link to same message board post. All content and edit summaries misrepresent the one, anonymous comment, on a board where any rando can post, as the work of multiple scholars/sources/or "Lakota speakers". All us same link, same goals, same phrasing to misrepresent link.

  • As 109.80.168.206 adds message board link, edits Waglutapi's comments on Dances With Wolves talk, specifically, more details about the message board link, confirming IP is Waglutapi, and showing tendency to edit logged-out. Text: "the link below. It states that the gender specific Lakota words were used correctly." IP also adds Lakota orthography to another article here, adding to possibility they are message board poster, engaged in self-promotion.

I could add more, but the obsession with the message board post seems more than sufficient. If any other admins want to discuss some other data that we don't post publicly, feel free to email. Best, - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note: Added another one today,
And more SPA's promoting the LLC and LC cropping up. Old, but the pattern of disposable socks to astroturf for this small group of websites and self-published works is clear. One account adds links, socks boost and expand.
At this point, it looks like Thiyopa is the oldest account, and it has overlapped most of the others, with a clear agenda to promote themselves/their org, that the other accounts are all upholding. I think the behavioral evidence is clear that, socks or meats, these are all one, disruptive drawer. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I haven't responded earlier, as I hadn't stumbled upon this until yesterday when I happened to check edit history out of curiosity, and discovered this. This is outright bizarre. I really expected that when I decided to drop the talk page issue and move on, it would be laid to rest for good. But apparently even that wasn't enough.

I have never used the accounts Pestophagous, Waglutapi, or the IP address 109.80.168.206. I would say it is likely, looking at the edits, that the user Waglutapi and the IP 109.80.168.206 were the same person. I do not know whether they and the user Pestophagous are the same person; based on what the latter said, I doubt it, but ultimately I don't know. I know for a fact that I am neither one of them.

More generally, since my first edit to Wikipedia under this IP, I have not used any other IP or any named account to access Wikipedia. I encourage verification of this by any technical means available.

As I didn't touch the article or anything related to it aside from my October edits, there isn't much more that I could comment on. I've read what Pestophagous wrote on their talk page, and even though I understand where they're coming from, and even sympathize with them, it's just an undeniable fact that the forum is not RS and cannot be used to source anything in the article. I never disputed that, and went to painstaking lengths to explain that I am aware of this and do not dispute that it doesn't belong in the article. It would make no sense for me to turn around completely and attempt to insert that source in the article anyway, under some other identity - to what end? That would have accomplished nothing, other than an immediate and justified revert. I see no logic in that.

Apparently three (possibly two if Pestophagous and Waglutapi are the same person, but I think three) people over the course of over 9 years, including me, independently failed to realize that the forum was not RS and made some edit to the article using it as a source. There is no dispute (from me) that the forum cannot be used as a source and it was correct to revert all of those article edits. None of the other allegations (regarding my own actions at least) are true. The claim above that "he repeatedly posted an archived version of the comment on the talk page" is verifiably false: as far as I can see, the archive link was posted on the talk page only once, and only by me.

I don't have that much at stake here, as the accused user is Pestophagous, not me, but as a falsely alleged "sockpuppet", I felt it was my responsibility to respond, and I am willing to respond to further inquiries by uninvolved admins if needed. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you waited until you returned from travelling to post under your IP and home device. The behavioural evidence has always been clear. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The username Thiyopa is Lakota for doorway -- they are literally referring to themselves as a gatekeeper of the Lakota language which is how they go about editing Wikipedia. On their talkpage, they mention their work in the Czech language. The source they're constantly adding into Wikipedia is material written by Jan Ullrich, who is a Czech and just happens to the Director at the Lakota Language Consortium or The Language Conservancy per his Google scholar page and here. He constantly promotes is work as the "Gold Standard not only for the Lakota and Dakota languages, but for all Language dictionaries" which is consistent with the way these accounts have been editing and downplaying the opinions/works of others who aren't on their "team" -- if these aren't just the same user. I don't know how many Czechs exist in the world who are fluent in Lakota and have a Ph. D level understanding of linguistics and just happen to edit Wikipedia constantly only citing the work of Jan Ullrich, a Czech who makes a living as co-founding a Lakota language organization. They also started a Lakota language version of Wikipedia and promote their work as the standard for spelling over there too: Lakota Language Wikipedia Test  oncamera  (talk page) 20:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why CorbieVreccan (below) falsely claims that I "changed the story", when anyone can verify that it's not true. I detailed my use of Wikipedia here, and I haven't changed a word of that. I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time, almost always unlogged. I used to have a named account, which I haven't used in many years, and don't currently even remember the credentials for. I am absolutely certain I never used - or previously interacted with - any of the accounts named on this page. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I state for the record that I have not "gone dark". Please investigate this and make a determination regarding my involvement. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these accounts are long past stale, so I'm not sure what is even the point of looking at them. But, for what it's worth, I checked Pestophagous vs Thiyopa and found them Red X Unrelated. no No comment with respect to IP address(es) -- RoySmith (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated in the report, this user, who first admitted to editing WP for years and then changed their story and claimed to have no other accounts (diffs above), knows how to evade checkuser. I won't post the details as we don't do that, but if you want to email me I will tell you how. This is why I did not request Checkuser, and why I submitted all the behavioural evidence. It's all the identical edits and writing style that gave them away. And on the chance they're meats, the policy still applies. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please email me what you've got, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at what was emailed to me. Most of it deals with off-wiki events, which aren't useful to this investigation. And, to be honest, most of the above is difficult to get through. What we really need is a concise summary, with specific pairs of diffs. All of the other stuff is, quite honestly, just noise that we have to sort through to get to what we need. I'm going to leave this for somebody else to dive into. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I provided diffs and behavioural evidence in the first round. This isn't about one link, but the broader agenda that Oncamera pointed out. As more socks or meats became obvious in the edit histories, I added them, every time with diffs. (The IP's m.o. is to wear people down with verbiage. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do about that.) The point has been to compile them all, as this is a determined astroturfer, who has followed this pattern for many years as it affects their income. Whether they've made themselves look like meats, or are meats, a meat or sock block is apt. I've included the stale accounts as their pattern is to use them as sleepers then re-awaken them as needed, as with Thiyopa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A meat continuing the pattern, Malakota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has shown up since this started, as well. (And now an account using the name of their umbrella org, following the same agenda: LanguageConservancyWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).) I compiled this SPI instead of blocking the accounts myself because I also edit the articles they've disrupted. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk assistance requested: - case stalled? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 09:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fairly complicated, so might be a while until someone has the time and energy. This seems to need a close more than clerk cleanup, so I've set it back to open. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new accounts I added have followed the old pattern: once reverted and warned, they've gone dark till attention has moved on. Probability is that, per the pattern, further disruption will either be from new accounts, or from sleepers we haven't spotted yet. If this is archived with no action (because the accounts have stopped editing), I'll reopen it if and when they resume editing or new accounts resume the pattern. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CorbieVreccan: I know this is frustrating, but it doesn't look like this is going anywhere, so I've just left some notes in cuwiki for future investigators to reference, and I'll close this. Please reopen if they reappear. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pestophagous/Archive&oldid=1063665134"