Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EEfamilytrees

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EEfamilytrees


30 November 2024

[edit]

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

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User:EEfamilytrees created created on 2 July 2024 and User:Robbief66 created on 17 August 2024 seem interlinked with each other, carrying out wiki-warring tasks to suit their own outcome. EEfamilytrees currently has a selection of sandboxes containing fake articles. User:EEfamilytrees/sandbox, User:EEfamilytrees/Josh Wilson (EastEnders) and User:EEfamilytrees/Robbie Flanagan. The second is the fake actor who plays the fake EastEnders character. These articles are using genuine wiki templates and framework which could mislead general readers visiting from search engines.

That aside, it appears obvious the username Robbief66 is adapted from the fake Robbie Flanagan sandbox. Robbief66 has been editing EEfamilytrees' userspace and the character sandbox regularly - see Josh Wilson (EastEnders)'s sandbox where you can pull up diffs [1][2][3][4] - At the time of writing I see no exchange of Robbief66 gaining permission to edit the userspace. Neither have the email feature activated, so they are obviously known to each other - more so the same person. Both appear to trigger the same edit filters, and the visual edit tag. They look similar?

Both accounts definitely want the same outcomes on Wikipedia.

  • Look at Penny Branning diffs: [5][6]
  • EEfamilytrees created Kit Green. [7] and I redirect it back to the list entry since it did not meet GNG [8] - Robbief66 randomly reverted me [9] - which I just find all too convenient. One of the other interested editors of Kit Green was the recently blocked sockpuppet User:SoapfanHTB456[10] and they were definitely editing similar interests connected to a long SPI of accounts used to target EastEnders articles with fake info or random article creations.
  • Another odd behaviour. 1 minute apart edits to the same page. [11][12] or 2 minutes [13][14]

The whole situation just seems odd. There are so many random red accounts and IPs disrupting Eastenders articles right now that I believe a checkuser is necessary.

Also adding GuyFromEE. This sleeper account appears to have carried out some work discussed by User:EEfamilytrees at Talk:Penny Branning#Page - a content dispute about listing to the duration date format in the infobox. User:Livelikemusic is correctly quoting the MOS but random new accounts such as Robbief66 and GuyFromEE are disrupting this. EEfamilytrees is involved in a discussion mentioning it, after he to was involved in the same dispute. The following three characters: Ruby Allen, Teddy Mitchell and Nicola Mitchell. GuyFromEE sprang to life to change it to EEfamilytrees and Robbief66 preferred way of 2024- to these three mentioned characters: [15][16][17]Rain the 1 21:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this so if not, I apologise. But a big part of this is about Robbief66. It's no secret that I personally know Robbie and that this is the reason for similarities. The reason he is mentioned on user pages is because he is the face of a made up character. My name is not Robbie Flanagan, my name is Max Jefferson, as is why on that user page under the 'Introduced by' section. As for the other person, I've never heard of this user. I believe that they just thought the same as me, due to it being something on many other articles. EEfamilytrees (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd also like to point out their similar behaviour surrounding image reverts. While the soap opera image wars are a whole different issue, there were some instances where EE would overwrite a non-free file with his own preferred version, and after it was reverted, Robbie would quickly revert it back once. (See: File:Peter Beale 2023.jpg and File:Patrick Trueman.jpg) Even if they aren't the same individual as EE claims, which would be piggybacking, the accounts have definitely been used to abuse Wikipedia by distorting consensus. FishLoveHam (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: I respect your decision and I agree EEfamilytrees has since changed his stance and began implementing the correct dates after that discussion, and more so after I highlighted it at this SPI. If EEfamilytrees genuinely did not want Robbief66 - the very user he is creating fanfiction about in his userspace - he could have been more vocal and this SPI case could have easily been avoided. I mentioned GuyfromEE and those three articles, he reverts them to prove himself and it has paid off. That is just my opinion. What Robbief66 has done is meatpuppetry. I also find it odd that the EastEnders article disruptor User:R283764 blocked on 1 August was appealing his block until he ran out of chances on 15 August. Robbief66 appears on 17 August, does not edit for two days, begins editing EastEnders articles and vandalising them. Also asking why he was blocked [18] and being unbanned - the terminology a blocking admin explains to User:R283764 there is no difference between.Rain the 1 20:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw and Voorts: Might we be able to investigate the account from the previously-made investigation above? It's very evident now this is a sock user, based on their continued actions. It is becoming ridiculous at this point in time. As pointed out by Raintheone, there is persistent resistance against MOS policies, and an attempted discussion at Talk:Teddy Mitchell was tried to be had livelikemusic (TALK!) 22:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: I had a slew of comparison at the now-deleted investigation, which I wish had been placed into here. But here are some comparison between one account and the logged-out (now blocked) IP.
1 2 vs. 1 2 3 vs. 1 2 3 4 (a.k.a. majority of this user's edits since joining in November). livelikemusic (TALK!) 22:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Livelikemusic: EEfamilytrees has since completely changed their stance since this SPI was opened. The editor now even quotes you and cites MOS:DATETOPRES - the same editor who was reverting you against the MOS [19]. Perhaps they have learned from their mistakes and asked their friend User:Robbief66, to stop editing on that account and quit supporting them via meat puppetry, since the account has been mute since this SPI was opened. And since I pointed out that User:Robbief66 is likely a continuation from User:R283764, nothing has been done either about that either. The other accused, User:GuyFromEE has since become the mouthpiece to all of this - the least to lose I guess. Never have I known so many new user accounts accounts, interested in editing a niche that is only EastEnders article dates, all joining up and being experts on how dates should be presented in infoboxes. I provided diffs above and they are yet to be acknowledged.Rain the 1
@Raintheone: Not only that, but now we've all been "warned" and I've been "reported" (which never happened) for (and I quote): the changes to the duration layout for Teddy, Nicola and Ruby and then not following how things are done. Yet, when asking for consensus/discussion, was never provided. I guess MOS is wrong, too! And throw in the usage of IPs, and it's a complete clusterfuck of a situation. livelikemusic (TALK!) 01:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is every other Eastenders wikipedia character page. GuyFromEE (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at every other Eastenders character page.
The "since year" is visually ugly and visually inconsistent making the page look amateur in comparison.
Ruby especially you're using a different presentation to the other years literally on her page already.
Be consistent. Why you're so adamant on this is bizarre. GuyFromEE (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you think this looks ugly, doesn't mean you make up new rules without consensus. You've been told multiple times to stop but instead you're reporting experienced editors. EEfamilytrees (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ignoring the principle point?
Your edits are going against the presentation of EVERY other Eastenders characters page. You've been told multiple times to keep it consistent and you refuse. You're the outlier against every other editor who edits EE pages. You did good work creating the page but the "Since year" needs to stop. Keep it consistent with other characters. Consistency is key.
And visual presentation is important on wikipedia actually. GuyFromEE (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 is the present so isn't a valid duration. EEfamilytrees (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, as presented at Talk:Teddy Mitchell, MOS:DATETOPRES/MOS:SINCE/MOS:DATED has precedence over this. Thinking something "looks ugly" is not a valid argument against ignoring the MOS. And when "EVERY other" page is attempted to be changed, to meet the MOS, it is reverted by you, citing it is against consensus, which again was asked for, and never provided, per WP:CONSENSUS. What you continue to refer to is known as silence and consensus, which is true until it is challenged (which it has been, citing the manual of style guidelines). What is "strange" is a new editor, claiming to have understanding of a consensus (which does not exist) and targeting the adherence of the MOS, is alarm. As well as the continued apparent harassment and false claims of "reporting" users is also "strange" at this point in time. And furthermore, to further engage in an edit war with multiple editors, who cite the same manual of style, could suggest you are the one in the wrong on this, and are unwilling to edit towards the greater benefit of the encyclopedia, possibly through gaming the system/socking towards a long-term pattern of disruptive behaviours. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is the other character pages.
You've ignored the point regarding consistency.
Keep it consistent. GuyFromEE (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you are ignoring every single linked MOS/policy, which states otherwise. Hell, I even quoted it right above your latest response. Your continued disruptiveness to the encyclopedia is becoming glaringly obvious, so let it copy/paste it again, for you. What you continue to refer to is known as silence and consensus, which is true until it is challenged (which it has been, citing the manual of style guidelines). Users questioning it means consensus no-longer exists, and is to be found again, to adhere to MOS guidelines to be followed. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ignoring the layout of every single Eastenders character page?
It's not disruptiveness. You are the disruptive one refusing to follow the visual consistency that has been established across every single Eastenders wikipedia article.
Why you're obsessed with making it different is beyond me. But stop it. Consistency IS important and a factor to wikipedia entries. Follow it. GuyFromEE (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly disruptive when I'm making sure Eastenders character pages retain consistency across all characters and articles.
It's the opposite of disruptive.
Be mature. Be respectful. And follow the consistency. GuyFromEE (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who is not following the policy/guidelines, choosing instead to be continually disruptive your own preferred take of the page, with continued incivility in discussions, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Telling someone to "stop it" is beyond rude and borderlining a hostile discussion, especially when you continue to ignore the policies pointed out, with explanation, is also not even assuming the good faith as to what's being attempted (which is an adhereance to the agreed upon manual of style set up by the encyclopedia. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hostile discussion.
It's prevention of trolling/erroneous revising of accurate changes in-keeping with how the specific should be presented.
I could make the claim you two are hostile to me as I did attempt to discuss this before and had my discussions removed without reply.
And keep the character pages and the duration consistent with others. GuyFromEE (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for comment, discussion was had at the talk page of Teddy Mitchell—as mentioned multiple times—and it was as ineffective as this has been, with the same-cycled excuses provided as here. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Red X Unrelated. EEfamilytrees has publicly declared (here at least) that there is a connection between the accounts through a personal relationship. When this disclosure was first made public will need to be examined and if its unduly influenced outcomes -- however, I think this case from the surface level looks like a case of run of the mill MEAT and possibly COI editing. In any case, CU cannot be any further help. Mkdw talk 05:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case this was not apparent to Raintheone and Livelikemusic, a checkuser was conducted. The statements "nothing has been done" and "might we be able to investigate", implying that no investigation was conducted, is not reflective of what has occurred in this SPI and only worked to further frustrate this case and situation. Familiarize yourself with how SPI works before you open another one. Such as understanding the difference between opening an SPI to evaluate behavioral evidence with respect to WP:DUCK and WP:MEAT as opposed to requesting a WP:CHECK. And, that we do not open SPIs to link IP addresses to accounts - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases#When not to request CheckUser. Understanding the purposes of SPI will also prevent you from (A) wasting your time and others; and (B) direct you to the appropriate venues to deal with disputes. Mkdw talk 07:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EEfamilytrees&oldid=1262410605"