Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codename Lisa/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Codename Lisa

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

25 April 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

All of these IPs suddenly appeared to edit Scheherazade, all trying to deny the Arabness of the name Scheherazade. They have been similarly aggressive, insulting, and used similar arguments: I/the other editor knows because Persian is my/their native language and therefore other people are unqualified to contribute 1 2; the Arabic script is different now than at the time of composition and the name is the same in Persian 3 4 5; Wiki-policy requires that those saying the name is Arabic provide proof 6 7 8 9 10; and accusations that others are edit warring 11 12, as well as other misuses of terms like no person attacks 12. Now these IPs claim to be as many as three different people, but as I can't tell them apart, it seems unlikely that they could either. Most recently Extremecia showed up, an editor with 90 edits after a year, almost all of them related to sadomasochistic bondage, and provides the IP(s) with a sounding platform to repeat their grievances/ideas before agreeing with them 13 14 15. Now I'm not entirely sure if this last editor (under whom I've had to file the sock investigation if I understand correctly) is involved, but the other IPs all seem to be the same user or else a case of meatpuppetry. It seems awfully strange that an editor who has been here for a year and only has 90 edits, none of them on subjects related to the Middle East, history, fiction, or anything like that, would just happen to come to the talk page of Scheherazade and ask someone to explain the dispute to him, just as it seems awfully unlikely that three separate IP editors would show up there. Moreover, the last two edits by Extremecia and the IP include strange references to sex 16 17. EDIT: I've found a single edit by Extremecia to Zoroastrianism: 18, which shows he might "lurk" on these topics, though almost all his otehr edits are about bondage. EDIT: Extremecia's latest dif 18 shares the same behavior as the IPs as misusing wikipedia policy, in the previous case WP:BURDEN, in this case WP:GAME, the reliance on the "special knowledge" of a native speaker, as well as the claim that all that is being corrected is a typo when the user actually wants to remove the designation of the name as Arabic or, preferably, change it to Persian. Furthermore, it is odd that a user who appeared to "learn the dispute" would listen to one side and then become its partisan.

EDIT: I have found more definitive proof that the IPs and Extremecia are the same person. Extremecia added a reply at 07:19 19. One of the IPs then edited Extremecia's comment to add something to the argument at 07:43 20. At 07:46, Extremecia reverted the edit 21. Although he's playing it off as the IP having edited his post, it seems very likely that he forgot to log in while making the change and then afterwards realized his mistake. EDIT As the IP has now claimed that they never claimed to be multiple people, I present the following diffs proving the contrary: 22 "You must be talking to 148.251.64.113" and "Enjoy convincing the other two, though." Further claims that they are not the same person can be seen in the various claims that the original IP has special knowledge as a native Persian speaker.

I think this investigation page now offers plenty of evidence of behavioral similarity between the German IP (most likely an IP bounce) and Extremecia, who is clearly the Isfahan IP. Notice the focus on "duplicity" and self righteousness about what is ostensibly a minor spelling error. Notice also the focus on my mention of their edit on Zoroastrianism, which from the context was actually an attempt to see if they could have a legitimate reason to have suddenly shown up at Scheherazade. Given the accidental editing while logged out, I no longer think this is necessary to consider. Extremecia have not explained why they decided to mediate, which should be easy enough to do. The whole thing looks highly suspicious. Ermenrich (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Defense by 148.251.64.113[edit]

*Sigh*

"All of these IPs suddenly appeared to edit Scheherazade"

  • First, some of these IPs have clearly declared being the same person. 5.219.88.48 has declared being the same as 5.75.31.196, 5.75.31.196, 5.75.124.229 and 37.254.65.122. When an IP with 37.* prefix declares being connected to the IP with 5.* prefix, it is a clear sign that he/she is trying to be transparent instead of abusing the prefix change to engage in sockpuppetry.

"all trying to deny the Arabness of the name Scheherazade."

  • No, we have repeatedly acknowledged that it is Arabic. I quote:

But the printed form "شهرزاد" is in modern Arabic script, which is in use by Arabic, Persian, Kurdish, Azerbaijani, Sindhi, Pashto, Lurish, Urdu and Mandinka. In fact, the Arabic version, Persian version, Urdu version, Egyptian version and Panjabi version are already using this printed form.

  • Lo and behold, Ermenrich has provided this diff above, thus confirming that he knew about falseness of this claim: [1]. Clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

"They have been similarly aggressive, insulting"

  • I quote from editor Eperoton, who has taken Ermenrich's side throughout the whole discussion:

I, for one, didn't call anyone disruptive, and I don't agree with the decision to semi-protect this page. Everyone in this thread has been good about using the talk page

I've found a single edit by Extremecia to Zoroastrianism: 18, which shows he might "lurk" on these topics, though almost all his otehr edits are about bondage.

  • That edit to the Zoroastrianism is not part of any dispute! It is not even challanged. So, if anyone so much as hits the edit button, you take it to have some evil purpose behind it?

"Most recently Extremecia showed up, an editor with 90 editors after a year"

  • I do believe Extremecia has somehow been invited to this discussion. But so far, this editor has not edited the article despite having the ability to edit a semi-protected article. Extremecia is the calmest editor in the whole discussion. His/Her role is mediatory. Yes, 37.254.65.122's edit was strange, but given the fact that these IPs have gone an extra mile to show transparency (while they could use the opportunity to commit more elaborate sockpuppetry), I think we must not read too much into it. So, connected? Yes. Trying to cheat: I don't think so.

Furthermore, it is odd that a user who appeared to "learn the dispute" would listen to one side and then become its partisan.

  • When you recurrently refuse to resort to any argument other than "It's Arabic 'cause some ninth century book that no one has ever seen was Arabic" but the opposition calmly refutes your argument point by point, you make a bad impression. You resort to ridiculous reasons such as "I trust Eperoton, who has edited in this area, more than him". So, IPs must provide source, even though they don't have WP:BURDEN, but for your favorite editors, edit count is enough? Bad impression written all over it.
  • You also make a bad impression when you file a SPI case without inviting the accused parties.

148.251.64.113 (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

148.251.64.113 is another user I did not suspect of being related to the others, but now their behavior pattern seems to be rather suspect. Your IP addresses are located in Germany. Does that mean you'd be able to chat with me in German and tell me something about the German dialect spoken in your region? Eperoton (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you pay me enough to cover the time I spend telling you and putting up with your inexplicable inability to see or hear thing you don't like. 148.251.64.113 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Defense by Extremecia[edit]

Lets get straight to the point, because I look as guilty as sin, when these four revisions are factored in: [2], [3], [4], [5]

Let me confess, these four revisions all mine. And yes, they are duplicituous. That's not because I have been trying to deceive anyone witch sockpuppetry, but because I panicked. I have seen SPI cases before. They are brutal. The IP 37.254.65.122 is a dynamic IP address and belongs to the IR-TCI, which serves an area of 700 kilometers in radius. During the days when network saturation is high, IR-TCI implements a Network Address Translation. (Shortage of the IP4 pool is one of the known issues.) As Ermenrich said, I did accidentally log out. I tried to edit my message and exposed my IP address. It was the same IP address as another user whose distance from me is no greater than 1400 kilometers.

In the hindsight, I should have not panicked and committed that duplicity. I must have contacted an CheckUser or Oversighter and explained the situation calmly. But I was angry at myself. I had done my best to keep calm and talk only, while Ermenrich had committed dozens of instances of duplicity in the form refusal to get the point. Now I was going to be accused of duplicity instead of him. Of course, SPI clercks are warned that CheckUser tools are not pixie dust, and behavioral evidence are required; and I am confident I behaved fairly well.

Oh, well. Now that everyone knows where I am from, I have to ditch this account anyway. Extremecia (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I might as well get it off my chest. Ermenrich, I might have been dishonest about the way I tried to protect the accidental leakage of my IP address, but you're dishonest throught and through, guilty of trying to fool the whole world. We tried to talk to you with reason, you resorted to blatant bias, double-standards, careless reverting, refusal to get the point, rudeness and assuming bad faith. Even if I had committed actual sockpuppetry, my defense would have been Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Extremecia (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Eperoton[edit]

Extremecia's defense is about editing while logged out, and the elaborate cover up attempt does look pretty bad, as they acknowledge themselves. Another serious concern is that Extremecia, an editor with with no prior history of involvement with the page or its general topic, suddenly appeared to support another editor with an IP located in the same city (Isfahan) in the dispute. I didn't suspect them to be related, but in retrospect it appears to be because the entry was elaborately staged, with the two editors having an extended discussion among themselves. Eperoton (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, not from Isfahan. The ISP is headquartered in Isfahan, but its service radius is 700 kilometers.
Second, this is called a subject with strong national ties. You might haved encountered this phrase in WP:DATESRET. Hence, it is no surprise that I came to read it. Same as the Zoroastrianism article, except there is no dispute there, so there is no one dishonestly claim "it looks suspicious". To those who do not assume good faith, everything is suspicious.
Also in retrospect? Please! You and your partner have so far have paid attention to everything but the merit of our discussions. Deceit have been your modus operandi from the beginning. There is no shame in living in a country that has unfairly received a disproportionate IP4 pool, but there is shame in inserting a <cite>...</cite> in the article that fails verification. Do you even know what a sock puppetry looks like? Like this:
Editor A: I think so and so.
Editor B: Revert. Reason.
Sock 1: I support A. Counter-revert.
Editor B: Revert. More reason. Pleas.
Sock 2: I support A. Counter-revert.
This discussion looks like this:
Editor A: I think so and so.
Eperoton: Blanket revert.
Ermenrich: It's Arabic because!
Editor B: Additional evidence.
Eperoton: Refusal to get the point. Disregarding WP:BURDEN. Something with WP:OR in it.
Ermenrich: It's Arabic because!
Editor C: Can someone please summarize this.
Eperoton: Refusal to get the point. Disregarding WP:BURDEN. Something with WP:OR in it.
Ermenrich: All socks! It is suspicious that people who have a strong national tie have a strong national tie.
Extremecia (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can explain on the article talk page what citation I inserted failed verification, and perhaps you can explain on this page why you entered the discussion pretending not to know Persian ("What made you suspect that the printed form "شهرزاد" is not exclusively in Arabic?", "I'd still defer to the opinion of the native speaker"). Eperoton (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can explain on the article talk page what citation I inserted failed verification
Done.
perhaps you can explain on this page why you entered the discussion pretending not to know Persian
I did not pretend. I simply did not say it because I entered in a mediator's role. This is exactly what WP:DRN mediators do. Have you ever seen a DRN mediator saying "Oh, I am an expert in this subject too; editor A is correct?" Even if they did, it does not solve a problem. I did not take side in the discussion; the closest I came to taking side was saying "you argument is sound" (which does not mean it is airtight) and "your fellow editors could have behaved better" which you yourself acknowledged by saying "I, for one, didn't call anyone disruptive, and I don't agree with the decision to semi-protect this page." I didn't want to win. Writing what I feel correct in the article is a worthless winning. I wanted to foster cooperation.
To be more accurate, the first sentence you have quoted from me (in parenthesis) is cross-questioning the OP. As for the second, it's self-evident; I am asking you to consider that any reader can detect typos.
Now, my turn: Judging from your recent edits, you are also familiar with Arabic script. Hence, you knew from the beginning that they were right. Why did you give them a hard time? More specifically, why did you say "The usage of short vowels in Arabic shows a lot of regional variation" while you knew that Alef is a long vowel in that situation? Extremecia (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of the article content belongs at Talk:Scheherazade, not here. Were not required to answer your questions, you are here to defend yourself from a sock investigation, not win an argument about Arabic spelling or making an issue of our behavior. If you really think we're "duplicitous" enough to warrant socking, as you say, bring it up at WP:ANI if this investigation fails.Ermenrich (talk)
You have no answers, Comrade Eperoton? Fine by me. You've been most obliging in the article talk page and in the article space since this SPI case has been opened. Maybe you don't like civil and straight-as-an-arrow Wikipedians and prefer to work those whom you deem duplicituous phonies. Not my preference exactly. So, there is nothing much left to say except to thank you for your cooperation. Do svidaniya, comrade. Extremecia (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you can explain on this page why you entered the discussion pretending not to know Persian
Are you aware that this is the reverse of sockpuppetry? Sockpuppets pile on support. They don't avoid supporting. They do exactly what Ermenrich is doing for you. We weren't even arguing to push a change in that page. You were asking us questions and we were answering. (To be exact, you were talking random offensive nonsense, hoping to fool me and the OP. We weren't being fooled.) 148.251.64.113 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a disingenuous argument, considering the degree of unified support Exteremecia offered after "becoming acquainted" with the dispute by getting the side of one member in it, as well as your own unified support of the OP's position. Anyone can see that he didn't "avoid supporting." It's obviously highly suspicious that Extremecia pretended not to know Persian, even deferring to the OP's claims of knowing it after the initial back and forth "questioning".--Ermenrich (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your meatmaster requested it above. You've been labeling every little thing suspicious so far, pretending not to see things that proves you wrong. You say "he didn't avoid supporting" and in the next sentence contradict it with "deferring to the OP's claim". Do you even know what "defer" means? Tell you what, you stop talking and from now on, we assume you think it is "suspect". 148.251.64.113 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The more you post on this page, the more obvious it becomes that you and Extremecia are the same person with the same propensity to personal attacks. There is absolutely no contradiction: Extremecia has been just as much of a partisan of the Isfahan IP's position as you have been, who also entered the dispute in a suspicious way. I wonder why you haven't replied to Operoton's question about your German knowledge. Despite being in Iran, Extrmecia pretended not to know Persian by claiming that the OP's knowledge as a Persian native speaker gave him special knowledge over reliable sources, thus "deferring to" (or appearing to "defer to") the OP's opinion, i.e. presenting the OP as knowing something he does not and arguing from that position. I don't know how I could be more clear than that.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Closing with no action. There is obvious logging out to avoid scrutiny going on here but I can't say it's certainly (or only) Extremecia. The underlying dispute fizzled a month ago so I'm just closing this to bookend it. Everyone is reminded to back off the personal attacks, that while you may use multiple accounts you may not use them to edit the same article nor participate in discussions, and that Wikipedia is not a court of law and if you violate our policies we will block you without considering what anyone else might have done. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21 July 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

"New" user who appears to know an uncanny amount about how Wikipedia works, and edits essentially the same subject. Clearly, they have encountered me before and the last interaction before vanishing was not pleasant, with a similar tone of voice as the cited Wikidata edit. Something just doesn't seem right here. WP:VANISH and WP:SOCK are not explicit about whether this would be multiple account abuse per se, but vanishing is explicitly declared to not be the same as WP:FRESHSTART. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • This is the accused. Everything Jasper Deng said about me is correct, although how do they lead to sock, I don't know. In order:
    • I have edited Wikipedia on different occassions since 2006. I know a lot about it. I repeat, a lot! In fact, I always sufferred from the fact that people here treated me like a know-nothing. I never had an account. I now have, to rememdy that.
    • I've met Jasper Deng before. I can describe him as hot and passionate, and definitely a good person. He does hurtful things like reporting people to SPI (like this one) or misusing the term "edit warring". (This term must be handled with care, so as not to fan the flames, even when it is an accurate description.) I know his buddy, Fleet Commander too. Also hot and passionate. Maybe a little too much.
    • I know "Renamed user 2560613081" too. I was there when she too was accused of sock puppetry. Her habit of starting the discussions with "Greetings" and ending them with "Best Regards" was legendary.
But I regret to inform you that Wikipedia has trapped itself into a state that sees anyone and everyone as sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or people with ultrerior motivations. If you guys continue down this path, I am afraid you are going to be very lonely. TheSmartOne2019 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you vanished under a WP:CLOUD, and didn't immediately declare the connection, I would argue this was not a legitimate WP:CLEANSTART. Vanishing is intended to be permanent, so at the least, the vanishing will be undone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking it is not a bad thing altogether. Right now, I have to work my way up the ladder of recognition. But if "the vanishing will be undone", I suddenly gain a respectable background. I don't deserve it, but I'm not the one doing it, right?
On the other hand, I'm starting to think whether it is a good idea at all to work in an environment where everyone is suspected of being someone else, or wanting to evade scrutiny. Wikipedia is becoming like a surviellence nation-state, say China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran or United States. If ordinary editors are at such a high risk of being accused, things like sockpuppetry start to become a justifiable action that one must do, instead of a crime.
There is also the burden of stealing "Renamed user 2560613081"'s identity. I'm not sure I can cope with that.
All things considered, you seem to miss "Renamed user 2560613081". That's all. TheSmartOne2019 (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jasper Deng came under attack by certain new (not established) account which apparently belongs to some old en.Wikipedia regular. So report it to WP:AN/I and wait until it will be blocked, created (other) socks, and eventually ends in the LTA pile. What’s the merit to associate the case with C¤¤¤¤¤¤¤_¤¤¤a’s record? I suggest to delete the request and revdel Special:Diff/907198932. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability. Vanishing is meant to be permanent, this is in contravention of that. @Incnis Mrsi: There is no valid revdelete reason here, it doesn't work the way you want it to.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If “TheSmartOne2019” will end as a LTA, then there is no difference whether is it controlled by ¤¤¤a or anybody else. If “TheSmartOne2019” will establish themselves in en.Wikipedia and is identical to ¤¤¤a, then vanishing will be undone on behavioral evidence. An attempt to investigate an acc having as few as 152 edits Wikimedia-wide behaviorally is premature, and all technical data on the conjectured master are likely lost. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman argument. Never argued or asserted that they would be an LTA.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, there are exactly three broad scenarios for a newbie’s evolution: an established user, LTA, or voluntary exit (which makes investigations pointless). Did I miss something? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Established user is the situation here, and established users aren't always above socking. Also, 152 edits is far more than enough to investigate on behavioral grounds.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me show you all a person whose behavior matches "Renamed user 2560613081": [6] Clearly this person knows a lot about Wikipedia and a lot about Windows and its ecosystem!

My point here is that knowing about Windows isn't equal to being the same editor that Jasper Deng hates. Every year, millions of people go into software, computing, IT and cloud field. If you jump on each of them as they come to Wikipedia and accuse them of being a sock or another article of clothing, soon, you are going to be very lonely. Wikipedians, in my experience, are expert at one thing: Vilification. They learn how to point finger, dig out filth, forget kindness, hold grudges and throw blue links starting with WP at each other.

You, dear reader, could be better than this. TheSmartOne2019 (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TonyBallioni, Bbb23, and -revi: With respect, what are three talking about? I explicitly said that I am not connected to this Renamed User Whatnot. What do you mean by "admitted it here"? I thought you would be more than happy to have one of your old editors create a user account and get committed; one to whom you do not need to teach WP:V and such. If I was Renamed User, I would have been very careful not to reveal myself. But you take my forthcomingness as evidence of my complicity? That's crazy. TheSmartOne2019 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TonyBallioni: Stop saying "you admitted"! Of course I am an old timer! But I never confessed to being "Renamed user 2560613081". "Everything Jasper Deng said about me is correct" referrs to the following:

"New" user who appears to know an uncanny amount about how Wikipedia works, and edits essentially the same subject. Clearly, they have encountered me before and the last interaction before vanishing was not pleasant, with a similar tone of voice as the cited Wikidata edit.

These are all correct. But I never confessed to being "Renamed user 2560613081". And I am not. Read my full disclosure above. TheSmartOne2019 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Okay, this has just been pointed out to me, and I'm not really quite sure what to do about it. @Bbb23 and -revi: can I have your thoughts? This was the discussion that lead to the vanishing. WP:VANISH is quite clear that vanishings are to be permanent. That being said, an indef wasn't being discussed at ANEW and they have admitted it here. My gut is to undo the rename and block the old account and request that TheSmartOne2019 disclose it on their user page. I could be talked into any number of other outcomes, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was in the middle of checking when I took a break to do RL tasks. I'd like to finish what I was doing before my break, which includes gathering my thoughts, but at this point I'm strongly inclined to indef TheSmartOne2019 for a number of reasons, some of which I may not be able to disclose because of policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR on the discussions above this section: the tradition is that, if you are found socking/editing after the VANISH, you are going to get your old names back. — regards, Revi 16:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheSmartOne2019, please do not comment in the CU/Clerk/Admin section. revi is a steward, so by convention we allow them to comment here as well. You saidEverything Jasper Deng said about me is correct reads like an admission of guilt to me. Everything else you say is speaking in riddles, so I don't particularly care to parse it. Regardless, you admitted on my talk page to having had a previous account (otherwise you wouldn't know DoRD from his content days.) Regardless of Bbb23's findings, if you do not disclose what the account is, I'm inclined to indef you without CU for violation of WP:ILLEGIT after being told to disclose. If he has findings that further support abuse of multiple accounts, that's even more likely to get me to support an indef. You need to make a full disclosure now. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to call the vanished user Codename Lisa because it's easier. There is no doubt in my mind, behaviorally and technically, that TheSmartOne2019 is the same person as Codename Lisa. Although I do not have the UAs for Codename Lisa, the CU logs show that the two accounts edited from the same country and used the same IP ranges. Behaviorally, the article intersection is sufficient, the topics are even more compelling, and the argumentation style, a combination of aggression and double-talk, all combine to make them far more behaviorally similar than they need to be to justify a block. Moreover, TheSmartOne2019 is  Technically indistinguishable from Extremecia (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Extremecia/Archive). I realize that Extremecia's principal focus was on bondage articles, but besides the technical evidence, there are three points that convince me they are the same person. First, they intersect on the following pages:
  • Second, again the argumentation style of Extremecia at SPI is eerily similar. Third, just as alleged at the Extremecia case, there was - and continues to be - a great deal of logged out editing, some of which is abusive. Therefore, unless there is an objection from Tony, I will block and tag Renamed user 2560613081, TheSmartOne2019, and Extremecia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bbb23, we edit conflicted. I had already indef'd as a regular admin action based on their responses here as obvious policy violations. I have no objection at all to your turning it into a CU block. I do think we should rename this to Codename Lisa, however, just for ease of referencing. I'll ask revi to undo the vanishing if we want to go with that option. I could technically do it, but I prefer a steward handle rename reversals. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Until the rename issue is sorted out, I've reblocked TheSmartOne2019 as a CU block and CU-blocked Extremecia, both without tags. Also, once the rename issue is resolved, a clerk needs to merge the Extremecia case into this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, the procedure seem to be Renamed **** to CL (2), TSO2019 to CL? — regards, Revi 19:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revi, why do you need to rename TSO2019? They're just a "normal" sock of CL.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
revi, m:Special:CentralAuth/Codename Lisa is an impersonation sock. They should be renamed CL (2) and Renamed **** should be CL. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Renames all sorted. — regards, Revi 19:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve blocked the main account to match Bbb23’s CU block (Bbb, if you want it to be a regular block feel free to change it.) Would a clerk please rename this case to Codename Lisa and merge Extremecia into this as well as tag the accounts. Thanks :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went out to lunch and just got back. Looks like you folk have sorted it all out nicely. As far as the clerk goes, though, I've tagged the accounts. The master is blocked as suspected, and the puppets as proven. Also, based on the nonsense at TSO2019's Talk page, I've revoked TPA. They don't need it to appeal to ArbCom.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, TonyBallioni -  Done. I've renamed and redirected Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 2560613081 to this page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codename Lisa), and merged Extremecia by simply moving Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Extremecia/Archive to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Extremecia/Archive and redirecting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Extremecia to this page. Please let me know if I missed anything or if I can do anything else. Setting status to 'closed'. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

29 October 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I'm filing this semi-procedurally, as Someguy1221 blocked them as a sock of Lisa and from a quick scan of the archive I figured I should put this in "for the record". Not sure if a CU is needed to find sleepers (doesn't seem to be the MO). Primefac (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • I'll leave this open in case any other CUs want to weigh in; I have not checked and it appears to me that data would be stale anyway. Flowing dreams pinged me early this morning and I had half a look at their denial and the ANI thread that led to the block, and my opinion is that between the timeline of account creation, the topics edited in common, the digging up of curious old grudges, the clear familiarity with advanced Wikipedia project-space editing, and the fairly unique argumentation style, Someguy1221's block is correct. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flowing dreams is  Likely to Codename Lisa. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Codename_Lisa/Archive&oldid=1036310891"