Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CuriousGolden/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | CuriousGolden


CuriousGolden

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

15 April 2020

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Similar edits, comments, and edit summaries

The main reason why I think these two accounts may be related to each other is their edits on Qizil Arslan. The sockmaster started this discussion on talk page[11][12] while the suspected sock editing the article.[13][14][15]; both promoting similar POV. They could have a sockfarm too. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Wario-Man (talk) 05:47, 15 April 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

29 March 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


I've closed many RMs in the past initiated by CuriousGolden. I've noticed a newly registered editor though who supported the RMs of CuriousGolden pertaining to Azerbaijan. The suspected sock has four or five edits on articles. The rest are RM participation edits, the majority though are RMs initiated by CuriousGolden who was previously blocked for suspected sockpuppetry.

Now the sock would participate as if he/she were following the contributions of CuriousGolden. On March 9, two RMs were started on Talk:Khizi and Talk:Qazax by the master. On March 13, three RMs were started by the master @Talk:Zaqatala (city), @Talk:Agdash, Azerbaijan, and Talk:Balakən, Azerbaijan. On March 14, the sock supports all the moves within minutes of posting "support" from each RM: Talk:Zaqatala (city) - 17:48, 14 March 2021, Talk:Agdash, Azerbaijan - 17:49, 14 March 2021, Talk:Balakən, Azerbaijan - 17:49, 14 March 2021, Talk:Khizi - 17:55, 14 March 2021, & Talk:Qazax - 17:55, 14 March 2021. Jerm (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out something unusual. Before I started this case, the sock hadn’t been active since March 22. Now not long after my report, the sock is suddenly active again and is now editing articles. Jerm (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Thanks for informing me about this. I don't control the account Gnominite and I don't think them also using the word "helpful" shows a connection. Regardless, I do have to say that I've talked about my Requested Moves on some Discord servers (I did not ask anyone to vote), which might've prompted someone to make a vote. As far as I know, there's no rule against talking about Wikipedia off-wiki when we're not asking them to influence the vote. If that's not the case, I do apologize. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked about the RMs in the Wikipedia discord server and a private friends server, where I briefly mentioned the RMs themselves in the context of me wanting to anglicize names of city articles (not in the context of the votes). So I don't think it constitutes as canvassing. Also, from the account's contributions page, there are several things that, I'd say, show that I don't control the account. For example, the user has made an edit on the same minute as I did on another article here (I don't think running 2 accounts on the same device at the same time is possible?). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • This case is being reviewed by Blablubbs as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate. Blablubbs|talk 10:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no doubt that these accounts are related in some way; Gnominite has made 64 edits; 16 of them (25%) to pages that CuriousGolden has edited too (and for what it's worth they like saying "not helpful" ([18][19][20])), and there's the clear votestacking shown by the filer.     CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk: I'd like to get CU to take a look to see if this is sock- or meatpuppetry (especially given the outcome of the last case) and to see if there are any others. Since they're an established user, I'll also ping CuriousGolden in case there's anything they have to say about this. Blablubbs|talk 10:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noting that most of the RM !votes the sock has made made appear to be coverup activity; they vote on multiple RMs in extremely quick succession – it's pretty clear that this doesn't leave time to thoroughly review the requests (e.g. [21][22][23]). Blablubbs|talk 10:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CuriousGolden, if you're talking to a partisan audience (i.e. a group of people that can reasonably be expected to go and !vote your way because you share viewpoints, or because you're friends), then that does constitute canvassing. I still think it's a good idea for CU to make sure (though I'd understand if CU disagrees), especially because Gnominite is rather clearly not a new user; if the reviewing CU does decide to check, please make sure to also look for other potential masters. Thanks, Blablubbs|talk 11:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    and a private friends server does arguably violate WP:CANVAS, specifically WP:VOTESTACK. There are indeed ways to make edits with two accounts in rapid succession, but I don't want to shove beans into noses. Blablubbs|talk 11:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Confirmed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I guess that makes the Discord explanation less likely. This is the second time that CuriousGolden has been caught engaging in illegitimate use of multiple accounts (see archive), and votestacking in a number of RMs in a highly contentious topic area is a textbook violation of WP:ILLEGIT. Their denial here is also disheartening given the CU results.   Awaiting administrative action – please block both. Given the factors outlined above, I believe an indefinite block is warranted, but I have no strong objections if the reviewing administrator decides to make it a (lengthy) temporary block in light of CuriousGolden's past contributions to the project. Blablubbs|talk 14:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Blocked and tagged. Closing. Cabayi (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21 June 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Sock account was created the same month CuriousGolden was blocked, and the editing pattern is very similar. Like CuriousGolden, BaxçeyêReş mainly edits locations pertaining to Azerbaijan. CuriousGolden also started many RMs to move names of locations such as districts and towns in Azerbaijan. BaxçeyêReş does the same thing. The most suspecious thing though is at User talk:CuriousGolden. A newly registered editor was requesting assistance from CuriousGolden who was already blocked, but apparently, BaxçeyêReş responded to the editor. Why would BaxçeyêReş respond on CuriousGolden's talk page if CuriousGolden was already blocked? Most likely the sock has the master's talk page on watch. Jerm (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

I was having a miserable day until I found this investigation which has truly put a smile on my face :) If you knew anything about me or CuriousGolden, you would know that CuriousGolden had a very clear, and at times painful, pro-Azerbaijani bias, while I have personally been accused of attending to the Armenian and Kurdish peoples many, many times. The reason why I commented on their talk page was because I had been involved in an edit war with an user called Aydin mirza, whose incompetence and CuriousGolden-esque bias drove me to confront him on several occasions—a conflict which we resolved long ago. Again, I find it amusing to be accused of sockpuppetry by people who know nothing about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, which is why I just wanted to thank you for cheering me up today. Have a wonderful week, BaxçeyêReş (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just gave yourself away because I don't remember pinging you. Jerm (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't ping me :) I was looking for Haydar Pamuk's investigation in which I was also involved (and ironically enough, labeled as "unrelated"). Yet I found this mention of CuriousGolden, which perplexed me, since the user was thankfully blocked ages ago, and saw my pretty little name. You seemingly didn't even read my comment, so I am waiting with patience and glee for you to realize that you've been wasting your time all along. Again, have a wonderful week, BaxçeyêReş (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, let me emphasize something you seemingly don't understand: Look through CuriousGolden's and my contributions. Do you see anything? Do you see that CG was occupied with blaming the Armenian side on everything in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and renaming Armenian villages, while I am working exactly against their POV-inspirited agenda and sometimes even getting into conflicts with their pro-Azerbaijani protegés? Sit down for a minute or two and just think about this, Jerm. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You created your account the same month the editor was blocked, and you've touched almost every article CuriousGolden had. That alone is suspicious enough to start this case, and just because the SPI case for Haydar Pamuk failed doesn't mean this one won't. Jerm (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let present to you a more simple analogy so that you can understand: If Donald Trump was banned and Joe Biden joined Wikipedia right thereafter, and if Joe Biden reversed all of Donald Trump's contributions, would you accuse Joe Biden of sockpuppetry as well because the timing seems "suspicious" to you? You seemingly have still not understood. My presence on here is the antithesis to the things CuriousGolden—and many of his like-minded peers—has done. But good luck in your "noble quest to eradicate Wikipedia of all bad things" regardless, I guess. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anything you say doesn't matter. Determining if your IPs/network are similar to that of CuriousGolden is all that matters. Jerm (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anything you say doesn't matter either, because you'll see in a couple days or weeks that this investigation will have been a gigantic blunder and embarrassment to you. Good luck in your journey to "remove me, the oh-so-bad sockpuppet of CuriousGolden", and please find some critical thinking skills and basic knowledge about non-Americanocentric current affairs along the way. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having an SPI case fail is not an embarrassment, nor does having a case open hinder me from continuing to edit Wikipedia. Jerm (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, the case has been labeled as unlikely or inconclusive! It's almost as if editing on some of the same pages doesn't make you a sockpuppet... I'm so shocked /s BaxçeyêReş (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • There are only two reasons the filer is saying that B is the same person as CG: article interaction and timing. The filer has not presented a single diff showing any other similarities. Stylistically, the two users are quite different. Their edit summaries are very different, and CG used some unusal edit summaries on Talk pages. Their comments in discussions indicate different levels of English proficiency. Based on the technical evidence and the lack of behavioral evidence, I am closing with no action. Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CuriousGolden/Archive&oldid=1029861353"