Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee/Archive: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations | Launebee Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:24, 28 August 2020 editGeneralNotability (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators66,837 edits Reverted 1 edit by MePhisto (talk): Please do not modify SPI archives. I have moved the case to the correct location. (TW)Tag: Undo← Previous edit Revision as of 12:49, 17 October 2020 edit undoAmandaNP (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,699 edits Archiving case section from w:en:Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee (using spihelper.js)Next edit →
Line 80: Line 80:
* {{checkuser|Arseitraunnit}} is {{likely}} to Group 1. * {{checkuser|Arseitraunnit}} is {{likely}} to Group 1.
*{{bnt}}. Closing.--] (]) 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC) *{{bnt}}. Closing.--] (]) 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->
===28 August 2020===


====Suspected sockpuppets====

* {{checkuser|1=Delfield}}
* {{checkuser|1=Ransouk}}

<!-- You may duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts-->
* <small>''Auto-generated every hour.''</small>
*

The account Delfield is clearly the latest episode in the string of sockpuppet accounts of Launabee. Launabee has been banned from editing articles on French academic institutions (. Delfield has been making edits to the English language Sciences Po article.

Evidence for sockpuppet-account:

Delfield has been following the content and language pattern of Launabee in a highly conspicuous way.
Launabee was recognisable by continuously adding laudatory content about the law faculty of University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne. At the same time Launabee deleted positive content about Sciences Po and added derogatory content, specifically about the Sciences Po law school. While doing so, Launabee demonstrated a distinctly French-sounding English grammar and made mistakes with his wording.


Delfield fits into the exact language and content style of Launabee. Delfield even used some of the identical phrases as Launabee. The following are just a few examples of many:

Delfield writes:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sciences_Po&diff=974153935&oldid=966898648)

"2008, partly as an answer to the announcement of the creation of a "law school" in this new meaning in Sciences Po, University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas, created a "law college" (undergraduate level) and then a "law school" (graduate level) on top of its faculty of law to attract top students in France (see the disambiguation page, second meaning). It was widely reported in the media as the creation of a "way of excellence in law" for "brilliant students"."


Launabee wrote:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Law_school,_college_of_law_or_academy_of_law_in_France&diff=974366825&oldid=706723576)

"Panthéon-Assas University being the top faculty of law in France, medias called even more this law college and school "way of excellence""

Both use the same citations. The same language.

If you compare the editing history of both accounts, the similarity is striking:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/Launebee&offset=20171002173105&limit=500&target=Launebee)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/Delfield&offset=&limit=500&target=Delfield)

If more evidence is needed, I can easily give more examples.
I take the nature of these investigations seriously. This is not a lighthearted accusation.

] (]) 21:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

] has provided additional evidence for the connection between Launabee and ] (can be found on this page). I kindly request that this evidence will be considered for the SPI. At this point I believe that the evidence speaks for itself.

] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 09:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The rational behind the addition of Ransouk to the list is explained below. ] (]) 11:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

====<big>Comments by other users</big>====
;Delfield
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small>

Hello,

I improved the article created by other users, I used their sources and those of other articles. I also copy pasted some useful information from an article to another. It obviously does not mean I am the same user than the other contributors whose work I use.

MePhisto is a one-purpose account oriented on making advertisement on Science Po with other accounts (it is why I ended up making much edits on that page and asked for a protection https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive&diff=prev&oldid=920447245 ). I tried to talk to him on content in talk page and find a consensus, but he never once talked about content but only resorted to a "you have the same opinion than an other account, and are not a native-speaker either, so you are him and you should be banned" argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sciences_Po .

--] (]) 11:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

'''Question''' MePhisto : what does it mean? --] (]) 09:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

'''Comment''' MePhisto and XIIIfromTokyo are only "proving" that I edited some pages another user edited in the past. They are just not happy because they wanted to make the Sciences Po article an advertisement and not discuss about content (for example ) so they are artificially creating this discussion. --] (]) 10:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

;XIIIfromTOKYO
It really looks like the same user. The same behaviour pattern was displayed on FR.wiki by {{u|Droas82}} way back in late 2015/early 2016. It took us 6 months to solve the Droas82 issue there. This user has been plaguing these articles since then on EN.wiki. Without a strong stance, you will have to deal with him/her for a long time. Good luck. ] (]) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
:I notice that this edit from this user, about some unspecified "behaviour pattern" from an another user, is their second edit in 2020. It is written in their talk page: "you are hereby topic-banned from making direct edits to articles on French academic institutions, due to your lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, you are cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants. Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block." Would this user be MePhisto? --] (]) 21:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
::1000+ edits this year so far, and 100'000+ total edits. Happy ? I don't think starting a discussion like you do by trying to know who has the largest editcount is very mature.
::Yes, back in 2016 I tried to warn EN.Wiki about {{u|Droas82}}/Launebee crosswiki massive use of sockpuppets. Launebee managed to get me topic-ban to silence me, and came back with a brand new army of sockpuppets. And then ] was openned, and it was proven that I was right all along. So, yea, maybe I should ask for the topic-ban to be lifted, but I don't feel like dealing with admins thinking that my "lack of facility with the English language" can cover their xenophobic behaviours.
::The "behaviour pattern" has already been introduced by MePhisto. So, no, it's not "unspecified". ] (]) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
:::What do your problems with the administrators have to do with me? I mentioned your text on the noticeboard because I do not see what I can answer to that. --] (]) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
::::Answered at AN. Now back to the real topic.
::::After only as of today, you have shown that you already have a deep knowledge of Misplaced Pages (), and of a 5 years dispute (enough to provide very fast some years old diffs). But of course you know nothing about and are not connected to Launebee/Droas82 {{Smiley}}. ] (]) 11:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::You message is not clear. I found where one can ask Misplaced Pages if there is a problem and I provided the "diffs" available on your talk page for more clarity. Besides, could you be a bit more gentle please? I am not responsible for your problems with Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 13:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
::::::You have attacked me on my number of edits, then on my grammar. Being "a bit more gentle". Sure, why not ? ] (]) 13:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
{{question}} Can an non-involved English native speaker confirm me that , although , is still very uncommon. It's a word that many French speakers use because of its similarity with (which is very common). Launebee was French, and spotting this kind of similarity could help. ] (]) 15:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

:'bizarrely' is probably not very common, but I certainly use it myself, and hear it often enough to say that it's in general usage. (Monoglot UKian here.) ] ] 16:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
::So, non-conclusive so far. ] (]) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
:::(Non-involved polyglot UKian here) "Bizarrely" is everyday British English. See e.g. in '']'' and which relates to a post-punk band. I expect I could easily find several dozen or hundred more examples. I doubt whether use of the word is evidence for or against or proves anything (except, possibly, the ability to spell). ] (]) 17:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the input. As {{ping|MePhisto}} put it ''"Launabee has used an incorrect, French-style English-grammar and wording. The edits of Delfield fit into this pattern"''. I have the same opinion, so I'm trying to pinpoint some relevant and indisputable exemples. ] (]) 18:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

;Strong bias against Science Po and in favor of Assas
These two edits show best that, as Launebee, Delfield has a very strong bias :
# Against ]
# In favor of ], AKA ''Assas''

:* The article ] (''École de Droit de la Sorbonne''), dedicated to ] law school was turned into a disambiguation page. Delfield commented the edit as "There was a consensus on this page".
:
:No consensus is to be found, because the talk page hasn't been used for years. Delfield simply brought the article back to Launebee's version.
:
:] law school (''École de Droit de la Sorbonne'') and ] law school (''École de droit de Paris'') are two rivals in this fields. Knowing that, it's more than suspicious that half (2/4) of the new content is dedicated to ] and its law school, and only a quarter (1/4) to ]'s law school. ''Sorbonne'' is never used by ''Assas'' and/or its law school, so their inclusions can't really be justified.
:
:So Delfield turned an article dedicated to an other rival university to a disambiguation page promoting ''Assas''.
:
:* Controversies
:
:Why is it acceptable to add at the Science Po article (actually just a feud with ''Assas''), but and need to be POV-forked into a ] ? And why the feud between Science Po and Assas is only worth mentionning at the Science Po article ?
:
:Neutrality ? No. Clearly, the same kind of material is treated very differently by Delfield depending on the college. ] (]) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

;Fast learning curve
As of today, since the 20th of September 2019.

*4th edit, 20 September 2019 : First edit on a law college in Paris
*8th edit, 20 septembre 2019 : First edit on Science Po, removing a large part of the intro, and already using {{Template|Citation needed}}
*23rd edit, 7 October 2019 : First creation of an article, a POV-fork
*33rd edit, 9 October 2019 : First request for page protection. The aim was to have the article ] locked on the version that Delfield wrote.
*43rd edit, 10 October 2019 : First message on a Wikiprojet talk page, in order to start a merging process detween two articles
*55th edit, 10 October 2019 : First article for deletion nomination : ]. Large parts of the article were subsequently removed by Delfield in order to thin the article, and ease the deletion process.
*86th edit, 20 August 2020 : First disambiguation page, in order to promote Assas.
*113rd edit, 5th Septembre 2020 : Sock Puppet investigation against Delfield begins

5h September 2020, I let a message on the sockpuppet investigation. Delfield starts ] tactics. I'm the main target, and Delfield starts to dig 5 years olds edits.


*121st edit, 11 September 2020 : First message at the Administrators' noticeboard , targeting my supposedly low number of edit and/or lack of fluency in English.
*125th edit, 12 September 2020 : Delfield a sockpuppet investigations against MePhisto
*131st edit, 13 Septembre 2020 : Delfield opens a ANI against me

As one can see, it's either the learning curve of a genious, or simply a new attempt of Launebee. ] (]) 08:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

;Same time zone and contribution schedule
and clearly contribute from the same time zone (see the "punchcard" tab). Their schedule spreads also fit in the same description : roughly 8am til midnight, 7 days a week. Delfield's low number of edits doesn't allow to go too much further, but for both of them friday & saturday afternoons are not busy hours.

Something to keep in mind for the next SPIs. ] (]) 16:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

;Ransouk added to the SPI

After a discussion with {{u|MePhisto}}, the user {{u|Ransouk}} was added to the list of suspected sockpuppet.

It ticks a lot of boxes :
* All edits are about the University of Paris II Assas
* It lies about what the references in French actually say
* "top university in France" style of writting
* "Heir of the faculty of law" style of writting.

Some elements seem odd :
* , but started to contribute only the , nearly a full year later.
* shows that this editor is clearly not a beginner.

] (]) 11:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
* {{clerknote}} This SPI was opened by MePhisto, who is also the subject of ], which was opened by Delfield, the subject of this investigation. Sigh. -- ] ] 00:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
* {{clerknote}} Open for a month and obviously not going anywhere, so closing with no action taken. If anybody has some new evidence and can present it in a clear and concise way so it's easy to evaluate, file a new report. -- ] ] 14:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 12:49, 17 October 2020


Launebee

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

13 September 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Evidence: User:Launebee twice removed some tags from the article Panthéon-Assas University. Another user, User:‪XIIIfromTOKYO‬, twice restored them. Then immediately a series of four IPs did the identical removals that Launebee had been doing, while the other user reverted the IPs and mocked them as socks. I am requesting a Checkuser because I think it is possible that this was a joe job against Launebee - not only because it is way, way too obvious, but because the IPs geolocate to Europe and the other user appears (despite their name) to be European.

The situation is actually seen most clearly at Panthéon-Assas University: Revision history but here are the diffs:

  • Launebee and
  • 129.102.254.237
  • 89.185.246.17
  • 89.185.246.13 and
  • 89.185.246.34

Thanks for checking. (And yes, the edit warring is being dealt with elsewhere.) MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment about not connecting user accounts with IP addresses: Yes, I know you can't connect an account to a unique IP that is theirs. But I thought it might be possible to check and see if one or the other user I have named here is socking, without specifying which IP (out of four IPs from two completely different ranges) actually connects to the user. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

19 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Some of the users that defend the articles University of Paris and Sorbonne University current versions seem to be either anonymous IPs or recently created accounts that support one another’s views in the discussion thread, creating a illusion of support. Their verbatim, including English mistakes (“reborn” instead of “rebirth” and so on), are also similar.

I have recently seen that the user Launabee was banned from making edits on French academic institutionsUser_talk:Launebee#Topic_ban. Since then, the following users were created, perhaps in a way of evading his sanction: 


Launebee (Last edit: 23/10/17) 
Parberg (First edit: 7/11/17. Last edit: 21/11/17
) JeanBirkin (First edit: 18/12/17. Last edit: 23/12/17) SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (First edit: 27/12/17. Last edit: 12/01/17).



As one can see, the users were created exclusively to support a similar POV regarding the University of Paris and Sorbonne University. The edits of all the above mentioned users are in identical articles, all concerning Parisian universities, with a similar agenda. Moreover, the date of the creation of their accounts is suspicious. On top of that, all the users seem to have considerable knowledge regarding wikipedia already from their first contribution.



I don't want to make false accusations here, I would be deeply sorry to make a mistake, but perhaps a more experienced user could have a look on what is going on in these pages. SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

28 August 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

The account Delfield is clearly the latest episode in the string of sockpuppet accounts of Launabee. Launabee has been banned from editing articles on French academic institutions (. Delfield has been making edits to the English language Sciences Po article.

Evidence for sockpuppet-account:

Delfield has been following the content and language pattern of Launabee in a highly conspicuous way. Launabee was recognisable by continuously adding laudatory content about the law faculty of University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne. At the same time Launabee deleted positive content about Sciences Po and added derogatory content, specifically about the Sciences Po law school. While doing so, Launabee demonstrated a distinctly French-sounding English grammar and made mistakes with his wording.


Delfield fits into the exact language and content style of Launabee. Delfield even used some of the identical phrases as Launabee. The following are just a few examples of many:

Delfield writes: (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sciences_Po&diff=974153935&oldid=966898648)

"2008, partly as an answer to the announcement of the creation of a "law school" in this new meaning in Sciences Po, University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas, created a "law college" (undergraduate level) and then a "law school" (graduate level) on top of its faculty of law to attract top students in France (see the disambiguation page, second meaning). It was widely reported in the media as the creation of a "way of excellence in law" for "brilliant students"."


Launabee wrote: (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Law_school,_college_of_law_or_academy_of_law_in_France&diff=974366825&oldid=706723576)

"Panthéon-Assas University being the top faculty of law in France, medias called even more this law college and school "way of excellence""

Both use the same citations. The same language.

If you compare the editing history of both accounts, the similarity is striking:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/Launebee&offset=20171002173105&limit=500&target=Launebee) (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/Delfield&offset=&limit=500&target=Delfield)

If more evidence is needed, I can easily give more examples. I take the nature of these investigations seriously. This is not a lighthearted accusation.

MePhisto (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC) 

XIIIfromTOKYO has provided additional evidence for the connection between Launabee and Delfield (can be found on this page). I kindly request that this evidence will be considered for the SPI. At this point I believe that the evidence speaks for itself.

MePhisto (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The rational behind the addition of Ransouk to the list is explained below. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Delfield

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

Hello,

I improved the article created by other users, I used their sources and those of other articles. I also copy pasted some useful information from an article to another. It obviously does not mean I am the same user than the other contributors whose work I use.

MePhisto is a one-purpose account oriented on making advertisement on Science Po with other accounts (it is why I ended up making much edits on that page and asked for a protection https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive&diff=prev&oldid=920447245 ). I tried to talk to him on content in talk page and find a consensus, but he never once talked about content but only resorted to a "you have the same opinion than an other account, and are not a native-speaker either, so you are him and you should be banned" argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sciences_Po .

--Delfield (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Question MePhisto talk about a "CU procedure": what does it mean? --Delfield (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment MePhisto and XIIIfromTokyo are only "proving" that I edited some pages another user edited in the past. They are just not happy because they wanted to make the Sciences Po article an advertisement and not discuss about content (for example ) so they are artificially creating this discussion. --Delfield (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

XIIIfromTOKYO

It really looks like the same user. The same behaviour pattern was displayed on FR.wiki by Droas82 way back in late 2015/early 2016. It took us 6 months to solve the Droas82 issue there. This user has been plaguing these articles since then on EN.wiki. Without a strong stance, you will have to deal with him/her for a long time. Good luck. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I notice that this edit from this user, about some unspecified "behaviour pattern" from an another user, is their second edit in 2020. It is written in their talk page: "you are hereby topic-banned from making direct edits to articles on French academic institutions, due to your lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, you are cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants. Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block." Would this user be MePhisto? --Delfield (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
1000+ edits this year so far, and 100'000+ total edits. Happy ? I don't think starting a discussion like you do by trying to know who has the largest editcount is very mature.
Yes, back in 2016 I tried to warn EN.Wiki about Droas82/Launebee crosswiki massive use of sockpuppets. Launebee managed to get me topic-ban to silence me, and came back with a brand new army of sockpuppets. And then Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee was openned, and it was proven that I was right all along. So, yea, maybe I should ask for the topic-ban to be lifted, but I don't feel like dealing with admins thinking that my "lack of facility with the English language" can cover their xenophobic behaviours.
The "behaviour pattern" has already been introduced by MePhisto. So, no, it's not "unspecified". XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
What do your problems with the administrators have to do with me? I mentioned your text on the noticeboard because I do not see what I can answer to that. --Delfield (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Answered at AN. Now back to the real topic.
After only 131 edits as of today, you have shown that you already have a deep knowledge of Misplaced Pages (
You message is not clear. I found where one can ask Misplaced Pages if there is a problem and I provided the "diffs" available on your talk page for more clarity. Besides, could you be a bit more gentle please? I am not responsible for your problems with Misplaced Pages. --Delfield (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
You have attacked me on my number of edits, then on my grammar. Being "a bit more gentle". Sure, why not ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Question: Can an non-involved English native speaker confirm me that "bizarrely", although correct in English, is still very uncommon. It's a word that many French speakers use because of its similarity with "bizarrement" (which is very common). Launebee was French, and spotting this kind of similarity could help. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

'bizarrely' is probably not very common, but I certainly use it myself, and hear it often enough to say that it's in general usage. (Monoglot UKian here.) ghytred talk 16:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
So, non-conclusive so far. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
(Non-involved polyglot UKian here) "Bizarrely" is everyday British English. See e.g. this search in The Guardian and this search which relates to a post-punk band. I expect I could easily find several dozen or hundred more examples. I doubt whether use of the word is evidence for or against or proves anything (except, possibly, the ability to spell). Narky Blert (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. As @MePhisto: put it "Launabee has used an incorrect, French-style English-grammar and wording. The edits of Delfield fit into this pattern". I have the same opinion, so I'm trying to pinpoint some relevant and indisputable exemples. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Strong bias against Science Po and in favor of Assas

These two edits show best that, as Launebee, Delfield has a very strong bias :

  1. Against Sciences Po
  2. In favor of University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas, AKA Assas
No consensus is to be found, because the talk page hasn't been used for years. Delfield simply brought the article back to Launebee's version.
University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne law school (École de Droit de la Sorbonne) and University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas law school (École de droit de Paris) are two rivals in this fields. Knowing that, it's more than suspicious that half (2/4) of the new content is dedicated to University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas and its law school, and only a quarter (1/4) to University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne's law school. Sorbonne is never used by Assas and/or its law school, so their inclusions can't really be justified.
So Delfield turned an article dedicated to an other rival university to a disambiguation page promoting Assas.
  • Controversies
Why is it acceptable to add 10,461‎ bytes of so-called controversies at the Science Po article (actually just a feud with Assas), but 4,869 bytes are "too long" and need to be POV-forked into a new article ? And why the feud between Science Po and Assas is only worth mentionning at the Science Po article ?
Neutrality ? No. Clearly, the same kind of material is treated very differently by Delfield depending on the college. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Fast learning curve

As of today, 142 edits since the 20th of September 2019.

  • 4th edit, 20 September 2019 : First edit on a law college in Paris
  • 8th edit, 20 septembre 2019 : First edit on Science Po, removing a large part of the intro, and already using {{Citation needed}}
  • 23rd edit, 7 October 2019 : First creation of an article, a POV-fork
  • 33rd edit, 9 October 2019 : First request for page protection. The aim was to have the article Sciences Po locked on the version that Delfield wrote.
  • 43rd edit, 10 October 2019 : First message on a Wikiprojet talk page, in order to start a merging process detween two articles
  • 55th edit, 10 October 2019 : First article for deletion nomination : Sciences Po Law School. Large parts of the article were subsequently removed by Delfield in order to thin the article, and ease the deletion process.
  • 86th edit, 20 August 2020 : First disambiguation page, in order to promote Assas.
  • 113rd edit, 5th Septembre 2020 : Sock Puppet investigation against Delfield begins

5h September 2020, I let a message on the sockpuppet investigation. Delfield starts red herring tactics. I'm the main target, and Delfield starts to dig 5 years olds edits.


  • 121st edit, 11 September 2020 : First message at the Administrators' noticeboard , targeting my supposedly low number of edit and/or lack of fluency in English.
  • 125th edit, 12 September 2020 : Delfield a sockpuppet investigations against MePhisto
  • 131st edit, 13 Septembre 2020 : Delfield opens a ANI against me

As one can see, it's either the learning curve of a genious, or simply a new attempt of Launebee. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Same time zone and contribution schedule

Launebee and Delfield clearly contribute from the same time zone (see the "punchcard" tab). Their schedule spreads also fit in the same description : roughly 8am til midnight, 7 days a week. Delfield's low number of edits doesn't allow to go too much further, but for both of them friday & saturday afternoons are not busy hours.

Something to keep in mind for the next SPIs. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Ransouk added to the SPI

After a discussion with MePhisto, the user Ransouk was added to the list of suspected sockpuppet.

It ticks a lot of boxes :

  • All edits are about the University of Paris II Assas
  • It lies about what the references in French actually say
  • "top university in France" style of writting
  • "Heir of the faculty of law" style of writting.

Some elements seem odd :

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments