Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TerentiusNew/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


TerentiusNew

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

02 September 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


After seeing the post at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Need urgent admin help at Suhel Seth involving this 4 months old account MaysinFourty, I recalled another editor who was as obsessed with this page as much as him. That is HeLaJackson who was blocked after this SPI.

MaysinFourty and this sockmaster;

  • Creates userpages and talk pages as first edits.[1][2]
  • Shouts in edit summaries by writing in capital letters.[3][4]
  • Same content removals on Suhel Seth by using dodgy edit summaries:
  • Calls other's edits as "garbage" [11][12]
  • Other same expressions: "I request you to"[13][14], "all the puffery"[15][16]
  • Alleges the article' subjects of having "PR Machine".[17][18]
  • Has used a distinctive term "Published Author" to refer to profession.[19][20]
  • DYK nominations related to history.[21][22]
  • Earlier sock admitted of COI,[23] and this new sock is alleged of COI.[24]

Sro23 and Ponyo can you take a look as well?  Looks like a duck to me. I think this person surely got more socks since every other SPI brought sleepers. Capitals00 (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: What "article deletion"? If you are talking about AfDs, both this Singora and MaysinFourty have participated in those discussions.[25][26] If it is about mass content removal then you should know that is modus operandi of MaysinFourty and Singora; remove mostly sourced content on pages of companies and business people with dodgy edit summaries.[27][28][29][30]

His edits involve dubious removal of content as "outdated"[31], [32] "fluff".[33][34] I have already mentioned "garbage" above, he also use similar terms like "trashy"[35][36], "rubbish"[37][38], "puffed up".[39][40] He disputes the use of images based on "permission".[41][42] Ends his messages with "Regards,"[43][44].

The edits on Suhel Seth also speak volumes because it's this sockmaster's history that his all socks lack 'overlap' between each other,[45] but they happen to repeat the same behavior on other pages.

Seems obvious that with the new account he created just 4 months ago, he was going to be extra careful but categorically he is doing now what he was doing with previous accounts.

As for how beneficial checkuser can be, I hope Drmies has got logs since he did investigate thoroughly and discovered a connection of Inlinetext and Nof9 (blocked as sock of Singora by Ponyo) with this another SPI per this message about 2 years ago. Capitals00 (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2020 (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]

  •  Clerk note: accounts in the archive are far too stale for CU to be of use. I'm not especially sure about this relationship - they seem to have somewhat different writing styles, I don't think we've seen article deletion from known socks, and I think several of the phrases highlighted by the filer are just Indian ENGVAR. The strongest overlap is indeed at Suhel Seth, but I am not sure that's strong enough for a sock block. I will leave this for another clerk or CU to have a look, but my inclination is to close. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  •  In progress - There is something active here, investigating. I won't be able to connect it to the 2017 cases, though. ST47 (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Hey, it's TerentiusNew! I've definitely crossed paths with them before, I think it involved them being suspected UPE. As for PlafinusDoz...the name is a similar pattern to others, they cranked out a draft that I could believe is UPE, and they like using reFill as a new user (shared behavior with several other socks in this group). I've blocked them and BlueCollarBones as suspected socks. ST47, do you want these folks tagged as Singora socks or would you rather I split this into a new case? GeneralNotability (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralNotability: I believe we should consider this a separate case, on the technical evidence at least. ST47 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ST47, roger that, will split the case. Also, I apparently managed to _not_ click the block button on the two unblocked socks, so I'll do that too.... GeneralNotability (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Split case history, blocked the two outstanding users, tagged everyone. For future clerks: this case may be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Singora, but it has been split because the technical evidence is stale and the behavioral evidence is, in my opinion, not quite strong enough to prove a relationship. Everyone is  Blocked and tagged, closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Account created a few days after this case was created. Same edits on Newslaundry[46][47] which he created by turning redirect into article with earlier blocked sock account.[48] Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2020 (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]

  • All accounts that this user could be compared to are  Stale. CU won't pull any useful data. Declining; this needs behavioral investigation... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: The two "same edits" on Newslaundry were both reverting somebody else's deletions. It doesn't take much to click the "undo" button, so I can't give these "same edits" much weight. This could just as well be somebody else with an undisclosed COI. Yeah, it's possible, maybe even probable, that they're socks, but I don't see enough here to be sure. Closing with no action taken. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Filing here because the earlier report has raised concern that this person is a sock belonging to this sockfarm.

These two edits by above suspected socks [49][50], unilateral redirecting of a seemingly notable publication by saying "non-notable book to notable author" and targeting the same author K. S. Lal reeks of WP:DUCK. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also added "TrangaBellam" to the list since he is also after K.S. "Lal" per his 20 December edit, and is apparently feuding with the same user as Walrus Ji without directly editing the same page to evade detection.[51][52] Georgethedragonslayer (talk)
Ping GeneralNotability, ST47. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On behavioral evidence, I believe the same AfDs collusion by 3 of these suspected socks is indicative of the fact that they are the same people:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How I Became a Hindu[53][54]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Muslims: Who Are They [55][56][57]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947 [58][59][60] Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

As the CU test showed, I have no relation with Auxentios or TrangaBellam or TerentiusNew or AleatoryPonderings or anyone else.

On old report filed on 7 Dec

The earlier report 'also' filed by the same user Georgethedragonslayer accusing me of being sock was even more stupid. The older sock report basically said that, two people have reverted vandalism on the same page, so they ought to be socks. I haven't seen a more stupid argument. I was reading the Newslaundry page, checked its history, saw the vandalism and quickly reverted it. Just two days later, Tayi Arajakate had made the same revert that I had made on the same page, so is Tayi Arajakate also a sock of TerentiusNew? (Quoting Roy Smith from the earlier report), he "could just as well be somebody else with an undisclosed COI. Yeah, it's possible, maybe even probable, that they're socks."

On new report filed on #22 December 2020

Below is my detailed response to the points raised in the latest report by this same delusional accuser. They are numbered in the order as they appear in the sock report made by the accuser Georgethedragonslayer.

[0] In response to the observation, made by GeneralNotability in admin section below, linking Village pump, I reiterate that I have no relation with user Auxentios. A few of Auxentios's many edits with the edit summary referring to the village pump discussion, showed up on my watch list. Out of curiosity and suspecting Auxentios to be a potential vandal I checked his other contributions and found them appropriate. Following the link in the edit summary to Village pump and after reading the discussion thread, I found many edits made by the sock, who was the subject of the Village pump thread, still remaining un-reverted. So I reverted those edits as sock edits, referring to the same thread with the archive link in my edit summary, as is expected.

'[1] I reached that article following Auxentios's AfD (see point [3]) and this template. My redirect edit summary "(merge with K. S. Lal. redirect non-notable book to notable author)", being questioned above is a generic and apt summary, that followed the WP:MERGETEXT guidelines. An exactly same edit summary was made while redirecting the article, by another editor named AleatoryPonderings, on yet another non notable book article by the same author, listed on the deleted template K S Lal. I had seen that redirect edit , agreed with the redirect along with the short and precise edit summary. I liked that summary, so I had used a similar edit summary myself later on, when I found another one of those spam articles, listed in the same template. Going by the logic of this person Georgethedragonslayer, who filed the sock report, this third user AleatoryPonderings, who was the first editor, to redirect K.S. Lal's non notable book, with the exact same edit summary, is also a potential sock and he should be CU tested, for the same suspicions that "reeks of WP:DUCK" according to the accuser Georgethedragonslayer's comment in the sock report. Accordingly, I have marked AleatoryPonderings for a CU check following WP:DUCK, which is a very interesting policy.

[2] TrangaBellam's talk page was watchlisted automatically after I had commented on TrangaBellam's talk page few days ago. So when Learnindology posted a template on TrangaBellam's talk page, it promptly showed up on my watchlist as it should. Following Learnindology's comment on TrangaBellam's talk page, I checked the article in dispute and I warned Learnindology for edit warring on the disputed page. I don't think I am expected or need to actively join an ongoing edit war on the disputed page, before warning the edit warriors. So the accusation, that I had warned the edit warrior "without directly editing the same page " is an accusation made by Georgethedragonslayer, based on a very very stupid expectation.

[3] From my watchlist that showed edits discussed in point [0], when I clicked on Auxentios's contributions, the most recent edits on Auxentios's contribution page at that time, (and hence listed on the top) were the AfDs Auxentios had started, those AfDs caught my attention, and I commented on them since the AfDs were justified and I agreed with the nominator's rationale. I think so far I have commented on more than forty different AfD's and these three AfDs listed by Georgethedragonslayer are in no way special than the other forty AfDs where I have participated. The accusation by Georgethedragonslayer here is that these three people had edited the same three AfD, so they are sock of each other. This is another very stupid argument. Firstly, the statement is inaccurate since TrangaBellam has only participated in two of those three listed AfDs and not yet commented on the third AfD in the list. Those three listed AfDs had received many comments and had quite a few common users, (such as Azuredivay, Eliko007, Shankargb, User:Peterkingiron, User:Ngrewal1, to name a few) some of them coming out of nowhere to comment on those AfDs, but strangely they are not accused of collusion or sock puppetry in this report for commenting on the same AfD.

In conclusion, this sock report looks like a perfidious hit job to me and should be deleted. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm accused here and I have no idea what's going on. Yes, I've redirected a fair share of apparently non-notable books to their authors (through an ongoing project where I go through Category:Book articles with topics of unclear notability, and I've participated in a lot of book-related AfDs. But I didn't participate in any of the AfDs that Georgethedragonslayer flagged above as suspicious, nor have I (to my knowledge) edited any articles related to K. S. Lal. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see that Walrus Ji has (rather perplexingly) added me to this SPI report themself. Apologies, Georgethedragonslayer. Walrus Ji, do you suspect me of being a sockpuppet of you? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AleatoryPonderings, Thanks for the kind reply and explaining and defending yourself. Yes, although you may have forgotten, but this diff shows that you did edit an article about a book written by K. S. Lal. I believe your edit, edit summary and redirect was justified, and they are not questioned here. If you read the case made by Georgethedragonslayer in the section #22 December 2020. Auxentios and Walrus Ji have been accused by Georgethedragonslayer of being sock puppets of some TerentiusNew, on the basis of a redirect and matching edit summary used by them. The case was approved for CU check by the admin and we have the CU results already. I know for sure that I am neither Auxentios nor TrangaBellam, so this leaves you and others.
    With all due apologies to you for naming you in this case, I have already explained in my first comment above why I mentioned you. Although I did not start this case, I am simply applying the same smart logic of "Exact same edit summary while redirecting a page" used by User:Georgethedragonslayer along with the mandatory sprinkling of " reeks of WP:DUCK " deployed by him. Admin GeneralNotability had earlier approved this CU test for this case on the basis of that logic. May be the CU check may prove that Auxentios is a sock of AleatoryPonderings. After all both have used the same edit summary while redirecting the book article of this author. I mean the cited policy of WP:DUCK is pretty clearly applicable here. Don't you agree? Walrus Ji (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp, this is a mess. I read through the whole thing and here's my two cents.
    Walrus Ji, if you think the filer's SPI was frivolous then using the same reasoning as them just for the sake of illustrating a point is disruptive. From what I can see Auxentious and your account had enough overlap to justify a CU, unlike between AleatoryPondering and Auxentious, but that doesn't mean it's a definite conclusion that either are a sock of anyone else.
    Please read WP:POINT and WP:BAIT. If the filer continues to bother you then you can probably file a report at WP:ANI for hounding seeing as this a second SPI by them where they have also misused WP:DUCK, which is referred to for the most obvious of cases and doesn't generally require a CU to figure out. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tayi Arajakate, If you are calling this SPI mess, then it is User:Georgethedragonslayer who has created this mess and Admin who have allowed the mess to continue. All I have done is explain this mess, as clearly as I possibly can with real events, without mincing words or hiding any event. I have only explained the fallacy of the argument made by accuser and sustained by the administrator in this case filed above. So let's be clear on that point. AleatoryPonderings made that so called WP:DUCK edit on the article about the book by KS Lal in August 2020, it happened in last six months so, yes they are recent.
    The filer User:Georgethedragonslayer has already created two frivolous SPI on my name, do you think I should take this case to WP:ANI now? Yes it is bothering me, it is not just a second misuse of WP:DUCK but a well thought out perfidious hit job. If as you say, "WP:DUCK is used for the most obvious of cases and doesn't generally require a CU to figure out", then his actions are even more sinister with serious consequence. It looks like the intention of Georgethedragonslayer was to get me quickly blocked, using a perfidious hit job of an SPI, without allowing a proper hearing or CU check.
    No, I think your assumption about the conclusion is not accurate, shockingly admin GeneralNotability is saying that he is "pretty confident " that the accounts are connected based on stupid reasoning given above by User:Georgethedragonslayer. The admin is entertaining him and looking at the comments made so far by all, I have no reason to assume that this admin believed this is a frivolous sock case. In fact reading his comment, the admin looks ready to pull the trigger and block me, based on the frivolous accusations. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been notified by Walrus Ji about this. I can confirm that I am not TerentiusNew or any other user listed here. About wikiquote links, others users have also removed the links as you can see here and here. Auxentios (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Clerk endorsed - I'm not convinced yet that this is TerentiusNew, but the two edits the filer linked + the shared interest between Walrus Ji and Auxentios in removing wikiquote links (both linking to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_162#Using_Wikiquote_as_a_back_door_for_POV_pushing as explanation) makes me pretty confident that these two accounts are connected in some way. All known TerentiusNew socks are  Stale, so you'll only be comparing these two to each other. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auxentios is  Inconclusive to anything else. Walrus Ji and TrangaBellam are  Unlikely to each other anything else. They are all  Unlikely to TerentiusNew. CU isn't much help here, it'll need to be based on behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Walrus Ji, who I think it's fair to say was the main target of the request, is now blocked by ArbCom. AleatoryPonderings was never really under suspicion, and the evidence relating to the other suspects is inconclusive at best. Time to archive. DrKay (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TerentiusNew/Archive&oldid=1008975706"