Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boseshub98
Boseshub98
- Boseshub98 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
27 March 2024[edit]
– A checkuser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.
Suspected sockpuppets[edit]
- Bandwagon98 (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
This seems pretty evident or a very strange coincidence. Both accounts are similarly named and editing same topics on Indian related films (Interaction Analyzer shows a lot of cross edited pages). They also use the same operating system to edit. What really ties these is that both started using the same "#article-section-source-editor" on February 21, 2024. CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell:, thanks for the comment. I am in no way attempting to invade someone's privacy. However, socking is not allowed regardless of the edits being nefarious or not. Are you saying the behavior is DUCK and no CU is needed?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @CNMall41 only abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited by policy. Mere use is not, as long as they're not evading a block or participating in discussions as though they're different people. And CU is an invasion of privacy, which is why we only use it to prevent and detect abuse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell:, thanks for the reply. I completely understand your contention. I am looking more at the part of socking under "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" and "Avoiding scrutiny" which has been a common issue in film-related articles. The editing from two different accounts is a way to "contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people." --CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell:, wondering if you saw the ping above. One user is actually fairly disruptive as you can see from their talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- If they're being disruptive report them to an appropriate noticeboard but there is nothing here to suggest abuse of multiple accounts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to question again but I do not anything in the guideline that says its okay for them to use an alternate undisclosed account as long as they are not using it to be disruptive. I would like to open a discussion about it on the SPI talk page but wondering if you are fine if I link to this discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell:, sorry, forgot to add ping. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- If they're being disruptive report them to an appropriate noticeboard but there is nothing here to suggest abuse of multiple accounts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @CNMall41 only abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited by policy. Mere use is not, as long as they're not evading a block or participating in discussions as though they're different people. And CU is an invasion of privacy, which is why we only use it to prevent and detect abuse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments by other users[edit]
- Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
Check declined by a checkuser. I don't think we need to invade their privacy to determine that these are probably the same person but I see no evidence that they're doing anything abusive even if they are. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
