Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OptimusView/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


OptimusView

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

12 June 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


The recent editing at 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes shows some suspicious pattern. Oatitonimly starts to actively edit that article on April 6, OptimusView chimes in on 8 April. Before that Oatitonimly has been relatively dormant, with several periods of inactivity (such as between March 4 and March 15, 2016). The Wikitruth24 account was established on April 19, 2016, after the 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, and since then focused almost exclusively on that article. Since the end of May these three accounts start to edit the 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes interchangeably. On June 4, for instance, Wikitruth24 reverted an edit about the territorial changes, later Oatitonimly reverts the territorial changes again to the previous version, then comes OptimusView to revert the same again, after that Oatitonimly reverts exactly the same place once more. The article is on 1-revert restriction due to WP:ARBAA2 and OptimusView is aware of that, as is Oatitonimly. Such pattern looks like an attempt to avoid it. Brandmeistertalk 11:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • This is complete nonsense. Brandmeister says me editing on April 6 and new user Wikitruth24 editing on April 8 is suspicious, but he forgets to mention THE ARTICLE WAS CREATED ON APRIL 2. So naturally, everyone who edits the article does so within a few days of each other. The 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes is a hot topic about a recent controversial event with already a large editing history, so naturally a lot of accounts were made within the first few days to to edit it.[1][2][3][4] I've been a member of Wikipedia for over a year, so that would be some dedication if OptimusView created me just to use over a year later for an article that didn't exist yet (lol).
I've looked at the few diffs provided, and only one minor was similar. This is beyond insufficient. The users Interfase, Parishan, and Grandmaster all made edits on this same line that were copies of Brandmeister's edit. Does that mean they must be his socks? Grandmaster and Brandmeister made the exact same edit one day apart.[5][6] Coincidence? Of course not, what to put here is currently a hotly debated subject on the talk page so of course other editors are going to be for or against it.
Just to leave no accusation standing, Brandmeister alleged me or OptimusView created Wikitruth to bypass the WP:ARBAA2 1-revert rule on the article (even though no admin has enforced it yet). He doesn't point out that my alert to this ban came on June 6. That's two months after Wikitruth joined and these edits happened! OptimusView acknowledged topic bans as recently as May 28. It's bizarre that Brandmeister is making such accusations with no actual evidence, it's very much assuming bad faith on his part. Or maybe he thinks the dispute will be settled by banning everyone who disagrees with him. This should be closed for insufficient evidence (an understatement). --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse this request. I also have suspicions about these accounts, and a CU would help clear the situation. One can see from the contributions history that the account of Oatitonimly is mostly used to make rvs on contentious Armenia related articles. It is quite possible that someone is using it for that particular purpose. Also, if Oatitonimly has any suspicions about me, he is welcome to file a CU, and I would also endorse it. If you have nothing to be afraid of, it should not be a problem to go through a check. Grandmaster 09:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to hide argument is a violation of the Checkuser privacy policy, simply put. CheckUsers asked to run a check must ask for (and be given) clear evidence that a check is appropriate and necessary. The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run. Do not make any presumptions, no matter who asks. No reasonable evidence has been provided for a check, so this would violate WP:NOTFISHING. --Oatitonimly (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OptimusView/Archive&oldid=1076211831"