Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tanhasahu/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tanhasahu

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

26 February 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

To note - The subject of the article travels a lot, and has been suspected of using numerous IPs in in different locations, per Talk:Josh Cahill.

Please also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HansoGalaxy/Archive, "it seems fairly clear that there is some off-wiki coordination or campaign related to this individual."


Sajid - Same language, same edits.
see edit summaries
Special:Diff/1210242597
Special:Diff/1210335251
Both calling DM, BI and BBC RS, both offering to open a discourse on aero
Special:Diff/1210368157
Special:Diff/1210361722

Instant history adding back business insider
Special:Diff/1210372052, which was previously added in
Special:Diff/1210242597

As well as adding back references in dispute
Special:Diff/1210375084
Special:Diff/1210372052
Again, originally added by Tanhasahu
Special:Diff/1210242597

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me DarmaniLink (talk)09:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the pond goes even deeper.
PatrickChiao was the original one to add it,
Special:Diff/1209924630
however, he also shares remarkable behavioral similarities with the others.

has had beef with ConcurrentState by name
Special:Diff/1209944466
Special:Diff/1210383149
Despite having never spoken, he clearly has beef.

Sajid comes in, backing up Patrick
Special:Diff/1210342692
And despite having only six edits, has an amazing knowledge of wikipedia policy.
Special:Diff/1210383149

These accounts are all clearly connected. DarmaniLink (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digging further, another account showed up matching the behavior of the other accounts User:SkyGeek123, that is, editing on a BLP before showing pure interest in Josh Cahill (and no where else), which was also made by someone who was banned for making undisclosed paid edits. 13:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A single purpose account with an extreme interest in defending the subject of the article User:HansoGalaxy had a block for editing logged out to avoid scrutiny. If the behavioral evidence wasn't already there, that establishes socking as an MO.
Defending him
Special:Diff/1181609149

Edit warring with a link to the subjects spotify podcast as a source
Special:Diff/1191416261

And the exact same editing behavior as one of the other accounts.
Special:Diff/1193389898
Special:Diff/1210523592
DarmaniLink (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by ConcurrentState User:80.155.39.221 IP is of hotel in Munich, editing activity coincides with BLP subject's whereabouts as as shown at 14s mark in YT video[1]. Identical pattern to the other accounts too. Edits a different BLP, then edits the subject of the article.

User:181.118.69.203, corresponds to whereabouts per here[2] and [3] (screenshot[4])

And, this exact editor is accusing people of paid editors out to get "the subject"
Special:Diff/1191416760
And know who else did the same?
HansoGalaxy:Special:Diff/1191245852
Tanhasahu:Special:Diff/1210638273

further delusions of persecution of "the subject" with all interest stopping on this one article
Hanso:Special:Diff/1193398291
Tan:Special:Diff/1210638273
Sajid:Special:Diff/1210383149
 1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny DarmaniLink (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is after the CU, may need a reCU. New account added, Ahadzuk, off an anonymous tip left on my talk page. Looking at the diffs by the account, it matches other behavioral indicators from the other accounts. On the article talkpage, the same editor also said that he sends his army after people, making the clear behavioral indicators and patterns likely meatpuppetry, if what he says is to be believed.
Special:Diff/1191620228
Special:Diff/1193398291
, there are 3 IPs on the talk page in the same section Talk:Josh Cahill#Request for comment on inclusion of "Aljoscha Wendholt" as name that I cannot confirm if they go back to hotels or not, so I will not reveal due to concerns over outing. There's a lot of quacking going on, and a lot of brand new accounts that just so coincidentally back him up then their account activity ends after backing him up. What would the next steps be after SPI? ArbCom? DarmaniLink (talk) 12:03, 28 February 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 not associated with any of the listed accounts. I just made edits with good faith to make Wikipedia a better place. When I made first edit to the Josh Cahill was a good faith edit based on the information and facts but it got reverted and got a message to participate on the talk page. So, I made statement there. If you check [[5]], more than 90% of the account edits were made on the pages, talk pages related to Josh Cahill. I can smell something fishy with that account but you're wasting your time here. There is something cooking behind the scene like users doing IP edits to vandalise the page and then the Concurrentstate reverting those edits to show his good faith with reverting the edits. But, behind this he removing the well sourced content and adding false content. At the same time, the editor using Aerotime Youtube video as reference and at the same time he questioning Aerotime reliability. You must check this user before reaching to any verdict.Tanhasahu (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if these will help, but these IPs have edited the page before; the latter 2402 IPs were recently blocked from the Cahill page for a year.

FWIW, I strongly suspect the 2402 IPs and SajidKhan1235 are the same person. Some1 (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same duck-like qualities, but didn’t ask for a SPI because I thought it’d be bad form given my involvement in the dispute.

Keep in mind that the blocked 2402 IP is most likely a COIE that’s the subject of the page and due to frequent travels, can easily hop IPs. Looking at User agents might prove essential here. Already a lot of the IP accounts involved on this page and their narrow activity on certain dates can be directly correlated to the subject’s travels. Some of them directly come back as IPs for hotels via WHOIS. I’m preparing a private SPI for this due to WP:OUTING concerns.

As for casting aspersions my way by the parties involved, for the sake of everyone’s peace of mind, I’m more than happy to be rolled into into this check by a CU if they deem it useful. ConcurrentState (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why an editor with a 6-day-old account, comprising 43 edits, with over 95% of these edits being made on Josh's Wikipedia page and talk pages of the editors associated with edits on Josh's page, taking so much interest in this single page? The level of interest displayed by you warrants scrutiny, particularly considering your apparent familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures within 6 days and 40 odd edits. Such activity may raise suspicions of potential conflicts of interest (COI) aimed at undermining specific individuals or promoting biased narratives. This situation may necessitate the attention of other editors to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia's content. Tanhasahu (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, I welcome the scrutiny to help keep minds at ease.
For the record: I started 18 years ago on nlwiki, editing off and on, made a few edits on enwiki, before requesting a vanishing. Now years later I stumbled upon the mess on the BLP article in question and wanted to get my 2¢ in. Then I noticed the gamesmanship with purposefully causing link rot, the COI edits and the general poor state of the article filled with puffery. So it kept popping up at the top of my watch list and instead of focusing on articles that align more with my interest I get roped into all that nonsense. Which is why I posted on the BLP notice board, to see if others with more affinity on BLP want to take a crack at it, so I can focus on stuff that interests me more.
But that’s enough about me, your account is hardly older to gain “familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures” as you so aptly put it. What’s up with that? ConcurrentState (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having hardly 30 edits across all Wikipedia platforms in the last 18 years doesn't make sense that you have learned all this deep understanding of Wikipedia with your editing. And what a coincidence you restarted Wikipedia editing with making 95% of your edits to Josh's page including your first account edit and removing well-cited content. Still, some questions are not answered properly from your side but I don't want to engage in a Q/A session on this SPI investigation page. For my familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures, I mentioned it on my talk page in response to Nil's comment. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try over 850 edits across all wikis between the two accounts.
I suggest you worry less about me, and more about yourself during the SPI.
And outside the SPI, I’d suggest you focus more on the arguments raised, than who’s making the arguments.
But that’s just my 2¢. ConcurrentState (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per DarmaniLink's most recent addition, HansoGalaxy, to the list of suspected socks, I think the evidence User:Czello compiled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HansoGalaxy/Archive is worth a second look. User:Vanamonde93 closed that matter by blocking HansoGalaxy from Cahill's article and talk for a month; they didn't take further action because they weren't quite convinced the reported anonymous users were all the same individual and connecting logged-out users to HansoGalaxy via CU isn't technically possible anyway. Vanamonde93 said "it seems fairly clear that there is some off-wiki coordination or campaign related to this individual" and any clerk responding to this really ought to consider that. City of Silver 21:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! DarmaniLink (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


@DarmaniLink: Some other IP accounts that might be of interest:

There's more, and I've lost track of some of the stuff because, quite frankly, it's hard to keep up with all the IP juggling. But the gist of it is that, except for one instance, all IPs I've come across are suspect.

I've made it a point to only include IPs in the above list that are unlikely to give away private information either because they're used by the public at large or because they seem to have been rotated out from active residential use. ConcurrentState (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gave a few em them a quick look, it should be worth it for the clerk/CU to look through some of these. Probably some further diffs I missed. Thanks.DarmaniLink (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your latest observations, I’ve taken a look at that specific RfC section on the talk page and the IPs involved.
Quick summary of findings on my part:
  • 64.88.226.29 is 100% in flight WiFi, courtesy of Instelsat (formerly known as PanAmSat, aka Gogo Inflight Internet), also shows they’re not above WP:STRAWSOCK.
  • Many of the others are from South-America (Argentina to be exact), which directly corresponds with subject’s announced trip through SA and published trip to Antarctica, biggest clue for that is also the relay race commenting, where one IP stops and the next one picks up. 80% sure one of the IPs is airport WiFi, but not confident enough to point a direct finger.
As for the anonymous tip on your talk page, I think they’re referring to subject having a nasty habit of siccing their followers to brigade people/organizations/companies/etc, bragging about and celebrating it. Some recent examples of this can be found here [14] (around 8:42 mark) and here [15] (around 18:50 mark).
This could explain potential WP:MEAT, but while it’s certainly not impossible direct instructions have been or will be provided, I think without clear evidence of that, the IPs seem too closely copying each other’s homework both in message and tone. So it looks more like regular socks to me. ConcurrentState (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Especially given they all casted the exact same aspersions, AND they both called the exact same rags RS. The behavioral evidence is there. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 @ConcurrentState Sorry to ping, but, take a look at Special:Diff/1210981695. I don't use instagram, so I have no way to check. Anyone know where I might find the post in question? The dates match up, and this explains the weird behavior as well. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • This page appears to be the target of multiple coordinated attempts to disrupt Wikipedia. I'm not sure that SPI can get to the bottom of this. That said:
    SajidKhan1235 is  Confirmed to AeroTimeHub, and has also been OS blocked.
    There are some suspicious indicators on one of the named accounts, but otherwise they appear to be Red X Unrelated. I'm not sufficiently convinced about the one I mentioned to take action.
    SkyGeek123 is  Stale.
    no No comment with respect to IP address(es).
     Behavioural evidence needs evaluation on the IPs and the whole mess in general, though with the page EC-protected there may be much less to do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't see what else SPI can do here. This appears to be a decentralized off-wiki campaign; possibly multiple such. The page has been EC-protected, and may need to be salted if it's deleted. EC editors who are engaging in promotional editing may need to be reported to ANI or AIV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tanhasahu/Archive&oldid=1211976673"