Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snarkyalyx

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snarkyalyx

19 November 2024

[edit]

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

It appears that several accounts, each with fewer than 50 edits, are engaging in coordinated behavior on the Bunq Wikipedia page. These accounts exhibit similar editing patterns and a tendency to accuse neutral editors of being paid, which is consistent with the behavior outlined in [WP:ATTACK]. The following accounts are involved: 1. Snarkyalyx (42 edits) 2. ElementW (38 edits) 3. Partydoos (20 edits) 4. Partlyx (9 edits) 5. Constablequackers (1699 edits) [Master Editor] Given the similar editing styles and actions, it is strongly suspected that these accounts are operated by the same individual or a group of editors working together. It is possible that Constablequackers is the primary editor orchestrating the actions of these other accounts. Pridemanty (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Pridemanty (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection to the other individuals involved with the edits on the Bunq page and only have a passing familiarity with the company. I'm only involved in this because I don't like it when other editors attempt to white wash pages and remove any content from a company's page that's remotely critical of it, which is what you've been doing. Constablequackers (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users

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

I am noting that this originated from an editing dispute in which the filer here has participated. The primary respondent (whom filer alleges is sockmaster) restored a section on corporate controversies that had been removed by a third editor (Jakcbay (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)). After this, the filer reverted the respondent, and there was quite an edit war that took place involving:

  1. The filer, Pridemanty (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (2nd revert, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, which was after the page was XC protected due to edit warring);
  2. Respondent Snarkyalyx (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (reverting a page nuke, reverting a second page nuke, restoring controversies section and removing puffery for third revert, 4th revert to re-instate 3rd revert, 5th revert);
  3. Respondent Partlyx (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (nuking most of the page once, a second time, third time but with attempts to cite sources, fourth time, 5th revert, 6th revert and 5th page nuke);
  4. And respondent ConstableQuackers (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (restoring poorly formatted controversy section, doing that again but also adding maintenance tags).

(For full disclosure, I also made a revert in here, as I had seen one of the page-nuking edits during an SWViewer run, and I opened up a discussion on the talk page.)

As for the other two respondents:

In addition to all the above, there is a history of UPE on this page going back a couple of years ago, with one editor making lots of edits being later banned for proxying for Wikibusines, and another another being CU-blocked.

For all these reasons, I would request that a checkuser investigate here; the company doesn't really appear to be in the news and I do find it odd that it has attracted so much activity from new users who are all edit warring in this fashion.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for my case, and a bit of context as for the attraction of activity Red-tailed hawk mentioned, I am a friend of Snarkyalyx and have disclosed this previously, increasing the involvement count by one. As can be seen on my user page, I have a pre-existing online identity on a variety of online services I think is sufficient to distinguish me from Constablequackers, whom I do not otherwise know.

If the sockpuppet allegations do not hold up, I will admit I could be accused of being a meatpuppet considering my involvement. However, I did not and will not contribute to the page being warred on because it is not my point; in fact I think some of Snarkyalyx's actions are objectionable and I let her know as such privately over Telegram, like the WP:3RR she exceeded, or the need to properly review her edits prior to publishing (no, Alyx, having ADHD is not an excuse). I intervened because:

  • this edit war at large seemed fishy and I wanted to point this out, with the purpose-created Partlyx account being used to worsen the situation
  • to provide constructive remarks in an intent to bring consensus about, being disappointed with Alyx's responses which did not bring that about; consensus being scenario I have already observed both on WP (en, fr) and non-WP wikis (OpenStreetMap, 3Dbrew.org, and others), I'm no pro but I see how it usually goes
    • "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors" as per WP:MEAT (emphasis mine)
    • For a user eager to point towards the talk page in their edits, Pridemanty sure doesn't seem ready to understand the counterpoints laid before them in said page

That Pridemanty and Snarkyalyx & others disagree on the contents of the page is one thing (I believe the ideal article content lies in some middle ground where the controversy is kept but reworded, irrespective of having its own section), but the inconsistencies expressed by me and others on the article's talk page, its history, and the ANI thread are the reasons I am here.

ElementW (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno as Red-tailed hawk mentioned that, there is a history of UPE on this page going back a couple of years ago, with one editor making lots of edits being later banned for proxying for Wikibusines, and another another being CU-blocked. I strongly suspect that WikiFirm WikiBusiness, is involved in adding controversies using multiple accounts. While a recent SPI (Sockpuppet Investigation) didn't reveal technical similarities, it’s highly likely they are employing advanced technical measures to avoid detection.Pridemanty (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to understand why you are replying to me instead of posting a root level response.
In addition; While a recent SPI (Sockpuppet Investigation) didn't reveal technical similarities, it’s highly likely they are employing advanced technical measures to avoid detection. is written by AI/an LLM. If it wasn't, the full name of SPI wouldn't be repeated, would mention "this SPI", and nobody calls VPNs/proxies "advanced technical measures". ElementW (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a geolocation connection between Constablequackers and Partydoos as Izno findings. Meanwhile, Snarkyalyx and ElementW admitted to being friends once the SPI was launched. They are all definitely connected, and it’s quite surprising how they always back each other up. Pridemanty (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, this accusation is false. I've explained my involvement with the page elsewhere and have no idea who these editors are or where they're located. We also don't all agree with one another and have differing opinions on how best to move forward with the controversy section and how it should be presented. I imagine we'll also not 100% agree on how to handle other issues with the page. Your behavior here, Pridemanty, suggests you're trying to whitewash/blank big chunks of the page, which is a big no-no on Wikipedia. If myself and the other editors are all in agreement on that, it's because this sort of thing is frowned upon around here. Constablequackers (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • None of these users are obviously the same. Of the set, the data indicates a weak connection (solely geolocation) between Constablequackers and Partydoos, but it's explainable by other factors. There is clear intent to evade scrutiny from Partlyx; combined with the disruption, I will block this user. I'm inclined to believe the story that Snarkyalyx and ElementW are different people at a minimum. Izno (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I have no connection to the other individuals involved with the edits on the Bunq page and only have a passing familiarity with the company. I'm only involved in this because I don't like it when other editors attempt to white wash pages and remove any content from a company's page that's remotely critical of it. Constablequackers (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Snarkyalyx&oldid=1259483991"