Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blablubbs (talk | contribs) at 08:09, 26 May 2021 (fix indents). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Zero sharp

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

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Zero sharp/Archive.

20 May 2021

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

I see a similar account setup as their previous socks, similar interests, and similar editing patterns. gidonb (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Blablubbs, I'm not an expert on Zero sharp and do not remember him as an editor. This is definitely a weakness versus the other banned editors for whom I found sockpuppets over the years (notably Haham Hanuka and Wikixx), who I remember well as editors. Nevertheless, last time when I saw an out-of-the-blue meritless nomination for the Israeli subject domain I thought that this might be a sockpuppet and it was identified by others as Zero sharp's. Here we have a similar nomination by a new user who came around shortly after Zero's previous sockpuppets were blocked. In the history I see again a deep interest in yoga, erasing of a vandalism notice, and cursing, so I thought I'd notify again for professional consideration. This is the stronger case. I have stricken through the weaker case that showed fewer similarities. In any case, this is not a crusade against anyone and there are no objectives other than to keep WP a safe and fair place for everyone. Best, gidonb (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User started an "ANI" procedure after I reported him. In this procedure he seems to express concern that his IP might be checked. gidonb (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

gidonb, all this over a template discussion? There is no evidence I'm a sockpuppet of a user I've never heard of. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am involved in the TfD discussion with the three editors mentioned here. From there, I have no clue that sockpuppetry would be happening. I also note that in that discussion OP gidonb was casting BF/PA arguments. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• His edit summary states "JIC" or Just in case. That is not how a sockpuppetry investigation works. There needs to be evidence as stated on the main page. There must be immediate evidence provided and as gidonb states, "I see a similar account setup as their previous socks, similar interests, and similar editing patterns". That is pretty vague which of course won't be investigated per the rules. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I've informed Catchpoke on his talk page. You can find it here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The summary Just In Case came with a change from "he" to "they". It means that I'm not 100% sure of the gender of a person in a discussion. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

What a spurious nomination by a hypocrite.Catchpoke (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for being so careful in your wording, Gidonb. Now would you please comply with the CU request for diffs? -DePiep (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I propose this investigation be closed, Blablubbs. It's been four days and no evidence has been provided because Gidonb is only here to cause drama because Catcpoke and I don't agree with him on the Tfd linked above. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have shown strong commonalities between a disruptive user and a known sockpuppeteer for whom I have detected a sockpuppet in the past. Whether they are the same, this is a similar case, or all is coincidental is for the analyst to decide. Also, I have never tied between the discussion and the investigation here. On the contrary, I participated in the discussion as if this investigation did not exist while you kept trying to introduce it. Facts do matter. 16:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Facts do matter. But you have not provided any facts so far. But I don't see why anyone would open this investigation when it transpired from the Tfd. I don't see why you would've suspect me in the first place. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• This SPI now is part of an ANI report. Please, Blablubbs or any other CU editor: why has this claim not been thrown out already? -DePiep (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• @Gidonb:  Additional information needed. 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. --Blablubbs|talk 19:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Blablubbs: I recommend closing this for lack of evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Gidonb: I have reviewed the diffs you interpolated since I recommended closure, and I see nothing that indicates a connection between Catchpoke and the master or their socks. As Blablubbs's request states, you must present comparison diffs, meaning diffs of Catchpoke's edits alongside diffs of the master-socks' edits that demonstrate a behavioral connection. Instead, you focus only on those edits of Catchpoke's that bother you, like weirdly claiming that calling you a "hypocrite" is "cursing". It's not, but, regardless, if you could show that the master/socks have called editors who disagree with them hypocrites, that would be some evidence of a connection. For these reasons, I am closing this report. If Blablubbs disagrees, they are welcome to reopen it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: Sorry, I was meaning to get to this – no objections to the close from my side. --Blablubbs|talk 07:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting archive