Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlainAndSimpleTailor/Archive: Difference between revisions

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

21 April 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

• 82.33.24.203 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 92.40.173.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

• Edits immediately focused on the article where their actions had them blocked
• Geographic location (puppeteer location public as edited as IP and regularly slipped between IP and logged-in edits)
• [1] removal of exact same material that blocked user sought to remove repeatedly, and without mentioning removal in edit summary - frequent tactic of blocked user
• [2] – references to the article being messy (as here); labelling editors as nationalists/nationalist arguments (as here & here); need of an "overhaul" (as here)

[blocked user confirmed same as previous IP editor here] Cambial foliage❧ 13:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (Second IP) Immediate focus on the exact some content; reference to "SNP press release" as here. Cambial foliage❧ 22:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Cambial Yellowing, What would be really helpful is if you could point out some diffs by PlainAndSimpleTailor to match up with the diffs you've provided for the IPs. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Of particular interest also is this edit, where they passively aggressively demand that I think perhaps one or more of the more passionate editors should take a break from the page. This is similar to this post on the same talk page by 79.66.34.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) where they say I think perhaps this editor should consider taking a break from this article. PlainAndSimpleTailor used the similar 79.66.51.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as they admitted here. FDW777 (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Yeah, it's likely these IPs are block evasion, but rather than play whack-a-mole, I've semi-protected United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 for a month. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

• 78.149.2.89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.104.136.29 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 212.187.244.81 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Numerous SPAs in the last few days all focussed on the removal of a factual sentence at United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, see 212.187.244.81, 185.104.136.29 and 78.149.2.89. PlainAndSimpleTailor's entire focus was on the removal or amendement of that sentence, see for example this, this and this, and this by previous sockpuppet detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlainAndSimpleTailor/Archive#21 April 2021. FDW777 (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

It would of been useful to have been alerted to this as I am now being stalked across wikipedia by one of the accusing editors. The evidence he is flimsy. The finding is flawed and is leading to harassment. The total of the evidence is that I disagreed with the two accusers as did another two users. Lots of people disagreed with these two so it hardly seems a basis for calling me a sockpuppet. I think their was rushed and rash decision because I am an IP editor and don't bother with an account so an easier target.

On the article in question I left the discussion rather than being drawn into what was quite a toxic environment. It is really beyond comprehension that people can be facilitated to use the tools of wikipedia to bully and stalk people in this way.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Page has already been semi-protected, so closing this. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]