Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Sander.v.Ginkel

Sander.v.Ginkel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

16 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Recently created account whose only edits appear to have been seemingly reversing the consensus at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines Bensci54 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Additional information needed - @Bensci54: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at Special:Contributions/Acerali and I see a substantial amount of page moves, all of which [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] are reversals of the SvG cleanup. The rest of the edits look neutral to me but then I don't know anything about the alleged master. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

The intersection do not even needs to be laid out.Just check Friedman's t/p.And, obviously see the CU confirmation at Dutch WP. ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The account hasn't edited in a year. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I would note that the account hasn't edited here in a year, but it's actively editing (and was just blocked) on nlwiki. Does that change anything, or does it have to be enwiki infractions? Primefac (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: It may interest a steward, but it doesn't interest me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Creating directory entries on sportspeople in user space then moving to main, re-creating articles written by SvG and deleted in the cleanup. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Either SvG or Slowking4 / Beatley. See e.g. Teng Yen Min, which is an identical recreation of this (admin-only deleted page), including the "retrieved" date, the Getty image, ... This is not something one creates identical by sheer luck. Fram (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the style of the interaction on the talk page, this is pretty clearly Slowking4, so this SPI should be moved and the user and other sockpuppets detected by checkuser tagged correctly. Choess (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 articles created in a day, 11 of them previously created by SvG and deleted. Most prior edits are creations of similar articles, initially in userspace and moved straight to main, then direct in main once autoconfirmed achieved. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Teng Yen Ming page is enough for me.  Blocked and tagged. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 September 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP is located in the Netherlands and is editing on articles relating to the Olympics and cycling. Edit summaries are mainly one word, pretty much the same style as SVG. Examples:

IP
SVG

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


GABgab 15:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. Filing for the record. GABgab 15:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Months after removal of links to SvG sock-created articles on minor sports people, this Dutch-speaking editor restores the links. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@JzG: Gap9551 is years older than the master and has almost 50K edits at en.wiki alone with zero blocks. You're going to need to present a lot more behavioral evidence, including diffs, to justify any action here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Many SvG socks are ancient, what are the chances of more than one Dutch fan of minor athletes? Guy (Help!) 01:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Guy, that's just not good enough. If that's all you've got, I'm closing the report. If you want to block the user behaviorally, that's entirely up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insufficient evidence. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Both accounts engage in mass creation of stub biographies of athletes, with a particular focus on women, cyclists, and the Netherlands (see contribs, article creations [9][10], userpages [11][12]). Sander.v.Ginkel was originally sanctioned because their BLP articles were often poorly referenced and contained errors (see the ANI case); similar issues have been reported with SportsOlympic's editing [13][14][15]. At ANI Sander.v.Ginkel admitted to mass creating articles using a template, which meant that errors in the template could be propagated across many articles, see e.g. this string of article creations containing the same typo [16][17][18]. SportsOlympic also seems to be doing this; see these consecutive creations which incorrectly refer to "taekwondo" instead of "judo" [19][20][21][22]. The two accounts' timecards are very similar, [23][24] and they frequently use identical edit summaries: [25][26][27][28][29][30], [31][32][33][34][35][36], [37][38][39][40][41][42]. Note especially the unusual habit of creating personal life sections with the heading "Personal": [43][44][45][46][47][48]. Spicy (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I think the behavioural evidence is extremely clear. However, since this is such a long-standing and prolific account I would prefer to have another clerk's eyes on this this rather than requesting administrative action myself. Thank you, Spicy (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent a fair amount of time looking at these two. Between what I saw there and the evidence in the filing, I concur.  Blocked and tagged, I'll leave the rest to you, spicy. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like everything has been dealt with. Closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10 May 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Pro forma. IP from Woerden (where SvG lives) with interest in Olympians and athletes. A number of behavioral similarities that I'm happy to discuss off-wiki with other clerks or admins. [49] and [50] clinch it, showing accidental/indifferent switches between logged-out and logged-in editing back before SportsOlympic was blocked. There is no real chance that SvG and this IP from the same city coincidentally edited the same pages at the same times, in addition to having a variety of behavioral similarities. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.  IP blocked 18 months. Closing. FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18 April 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

The IP was banned for 18 months and now they've returned and continued their draft creation. It's an open-and-shut case. Since their comeback, they've already received several warnings on their talk regarding vandalism. Some of their edits are fine tho. But as the last admin to block this IP stated: I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. I also feel they should not be allowed to edit regardless of how constructive their edits are — without any sort of formal appeal or apology from their main account. [That's for admins to decide but as it stands, this IP should be blocked, and their remainder drafts/creation should be CSD'd.] X (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Although I revived the sock investigation (out of procedural responsibility), I wish they'd follow all the procedures and will be given a pass. @Sander.v.Ginkel, please take whatever conditional offer the admins might give you and come clean. That'd mean a clearer and more sustainable path for everyone. You won't lose your hours, we'd also get more articles, and refrain from wasting time catching one more of the "rule breakers." Let's build this encyclopedia together. What's the point of losing your work again and again? I'd want to see you formally appealing and abiding by the offer/conditions the admins might give you. Take care. X (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I really don't want to have to block here, since most of their edits are constructive, but this is still ban evasion. Blocked for 3 years. Closing. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive&oldid=1220113010"