Dalai lama ding dong
- Dalai lama ding dong ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 October 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Dalai lama ding dong is a notorious sockpuppeter, who edits Judaism-related articles and Israeli-Arab conflict articles. 31.53.232.98 has already begun editing Judaism-related articles (his edits are against Judaism or Jewish figures) after editing an Israeli-Arab article; these are their first three edits. On the article List of massacres in Israel, he tells us to see the talk to support the change, where a now blocked sockpuppet of Dalai lama ding dong said that this should be removed. Now the sock comes along and makes this edit.
Also, all three IPs are from exactly the same place in England, which is common amongst Dalai's socks and suspected socks (see User:86.174.199.216, User:90.211.19.178, and other IP socks of his).
-- Jethro B 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Jethro B 18:54, 14 October 2012 (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
Made a couple of protections. Unfortunately, he/she is editing from BT, so no rangeblock possible. Elockid ( Talk) 15:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
22 October 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Both Dalai Lama Ding Dong and this IP address edit from the same location, and show an interest in either Jewish-related articles or Israel-Arab conflict related articles. Here is the IP's [ second edit], for example.
Dalai lama ding dong is a notorious sockpuppeter who has been sockuppeting for months. Here is another recent SPI I opened against him (and succeeded in it).
-- Jethro B 23:26, 22 October 2012 (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
Clearly related to the previous IPs, but this is not an actionable case since these IPs are very very dynamic and the pages themselves don't appear to be frequent targets. – Steel 19:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
26 December 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
IP hopping edit warrior with Brazilian IP which is obviously the indefinitely blocked notorious editor known as Dalai lama ding dong / BilalSaleh / Guinsberg. We need to take care of this quickly because the user is causing a huge mayhem with multiple IP addresses and blatant violations of 1RR in sensitive topic areas. Marokwitz ( talk) 20:55, 26 December 2012 (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
- I've blocked both IPs for one week based on WP:DUCK. They are static IPs.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
-
Clerk declined - Can't use CU on IPs.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER
23:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC) - Bbb23 has taken care of it, thus closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Note, these users are probably related to Guinsberg ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Bilalsahel ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), as noted on User talk:186.212.143.98, another blocked sock, but all may or may not be actually related to DLDD. As these are IPs an not registered accounts, just noting in archive rather than moving. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
01 January 2013
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Do not collect ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Probably not connected to User:Guinsberg/ USER:BilalSaleh and any of the Brazilian IP but rather to Scotland's IP of British telecom except concentrating on Israeli/Jewish topics [1] there are quite few similarities that I rather not reveal per WP:BEANS but I will send to any CU or clerk Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- You email is not enabled anyhow like I said they not connected to User:Guinsberg/ USER:BilalSaleh this was some mistake as it different sock master.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 05:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)'
- I have sent you an email-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 06:37, 2 January 2013 (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
Stale This will have to be decided based on behavior.-
Clerk endorsed - Strike that, there is in fact a sock that isn't stale:
User:Guinsberg. Endorsing for CU, to ensure that this is indeed socking. (
X! ·
talk) ·
@243 ·
04:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC) -
Check declined by a checkuser. 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:
- 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.
- At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
- 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. T. Canens ( talk) 06:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Got the email and saw enough for a check.
Do not collect (
talk ·
contribs) is
Unrelated to
Guinsberg (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki), which does appear to be a case of mistaken identity. (Can a passing clerk please retag that account and
BilalSaleh (
talk ·
contribs)?) Comparing to the data in the CU logs and the earlier IPs in the archives, it's 
Possible that Do not collect is DLDD, but I can't make a more definitive connection than that.
T. Canens (
talk)
09:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC) -
Clerk note: I've retagged the two above accounts. However, I don't really see enough evidence to block Do Not Collect yet. While some aspects certainly look suspicious, there is no overlap in the accounts, so I can't really place a block yet. Closing.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
15:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
27 August 2014
- Suspected sockpuppets
- GGranddad ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- IRISZOOM ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
*
AcidSnow (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
IRISZOOM joined the argument on the talk page of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict minutes after GGrandad was blocked, defending restoration of GGranddad's last edit (by AcidSnow) making a point very similar to GGrandad's: here and here. The user did not contribute to the talk page previously. From a look at the other user's contributions, they seem to be primarily on the Israel-Palestine subject, as I've read was Dalai lama ding dong's interest. I am not a linguist, but in general the writing styles of the IRISZOOM and GGranddad seem similar here is an example - although I did not corespond with IRISZOOM much. I cannot check the geographic location of the user, therefore I submit my speculations for your review.
- After corresponding more with
IRISZOOM
here, I'm convinced they are the same person. If one removes the signatures from the discussion, it's impossible to tell where GGranddad's statements end and where IRISZOOM's begin, same argument and choice of words:
- GGranddad: "Actually two of them state that and they were.The percentage of civilians is only disputed by Israel. I see no need to remove well sourced factual information, the sources back up what has been written in the article"
- IRISZOOM: "As I've said, just because Israel and some others dispute the numbers doesn't mean that we don't report the overwhelmingly view which is that most of the dead were Palestinian civilians."
- WarKosign ( talk) 07:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have much less basis to suspect AcidSnow, only
restoring GGranddad's last edit minutes after the user being blocked, and somewhat of an interest in the same subject - although with much more focus on Somalia. Again, the user can be cleared easily based IP location by someone who has access to this information.
WarKosign (
talk)
21:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've looked at some of AcidSnow's posts and the writing style seems very different. I have no more basis to suspect him. AcidSnow, sorry for the suspicion, it's not personal WarKosign ( talk) 08:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The evidence here is silly. Yes, I did and continue to say that Palestinian casualties shouldn't be diminished but that doesn't mean I am the same person behind accounts who have a similiar position. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 22:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Having interacted with both, I would not be surprised to learn IRISZOOM and GGranddad are one and the same. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 17:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
AcidSnow
So this is what happens when I make a few edits outside Somali related ones? I get accused of being a sock? You have to come up something better than that! AcidSnow ( talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Technically
Unrelated. Diffs are similar but definitely are different users from a technical basis.
NativeForeigner
Talk
04:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
12 October 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
I am not too familiar with Dalai lama ding dong, because he is probably the only non-Israeli-POV prolific sockpuppet active in this area. However, I have my suspicions about this editor. First was to an AfD. Editing times are quite similar to previously blocked socks, and to Dalai lama ding dong themselves. Some similarities in topics related to Judaism and Israel/Palestine related articles etc. with somewhat similar edit summaries ( diff, diff, JohnMcintyre , Do not collect, diff). There is no non-stale sock going back a year, so I don't know if a CU is possible. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I think the suspicions are spot on. I have some additional evidence that I would be happy to e-mail , per WP:BEANS. Bad Dryer ( talk) 18:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I became suspicious because Johnmcintyre is so new here and it just seems incredible to me that he can edit with such speed and facility, not to mention knowing all kinds of Wikipedia jargon and stuff like just how to word things so he can pass off a POV disruption as a flaw in the sourcing. The similarity of approach by User:InedibleHulk and User:Johnmcintyre1959 in challenging User:Bolter21 edits at List of terrorist incidents, 2015 in early October made me wonder if they might be the same person. As did the similarity of approach between User:Johnmcintyre1959's approach at Lions' Gate stabbings and User:InedibleHulk 's approach at 2015 Parramatta shooting. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Also here. Twice Johnmcintyre1959 accuses this editor of using "unsourced" contant on a list, [2], [3]. Fairly arcane list. Just hours later, Inediblehulk chimes in alleging the use of unsourced content [4]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am unsure of what relevance the above has. Inediblehulk is plainly not a Dalai lama ding dong sock. They have 30,000 edits. If you are alleging that the sockmaster is not Dalai lama ding dong but Inediblehulk, it is best to open a new SPI. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Plus he's an awfully fast learner to be taking stuff to notice boards
[5] s soon after he began editing.
Looks like a duck to me
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
19:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Please note that the user has basically admitted that he is a returning user who has been banned, but believes he deserves a "second chance". See:
- User:Bad Dryer makes an important point. Plus, when asked repeatedly on his talk page, buy me and by other editors about previous accounts, editor did not deny having had them. He just didn't respond. Odd, because before this investigation started he actively responded, countered everything. He has been lying low during this procedure. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is sock puppetry, but I did have a previous account, as theredheifer. I lost the password, and therefore started a new account. Is this what I am accused of? Should I have declared that earlier? I have not used the two accounts at the same time to post. I found that an old laptop had the password saved, and I checked the red heifer page a couple of days ago, but I can remove one of the accounts, or just stop using one of them, by deleting the password from the password vault. I am knowledgable because I read up on how to do something first. I don't think that things that are supposed to show that I have been a previous user are actually that difficult to grasp. The no OR, always provide an RS, are not complicated to understand. It annoys me that there is a lot of OR in the areas I am interested in. I would like to remain as a wikipedia editor, and I do not believe I have been disruptive. I think that certain users are not happy at being challenged for what I consider to be OR, and cannot understand that it does not take long to learn the rules here, and therefore they do not expect to be challenged by what seems to be a new user. If you follow the debates you pick it up pretty quick. The rules here are really very very simple to grasp. As to claims about quick response times, doesn't that just show that someone is interested? I have slowed down editing, as I do not know what happens next. Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk) 20:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I may be banned, but for heavens sake, your use of the word hero in this sentence is pure OR. = I may get banned for this. Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk)
Ki, please check my recent editing record. I stick to RS, and I stick to the what is in the sources. I remove OR, and therefore request that you support me coming in from the cold, and being allowed to remain on wikipedia. I argue that I deserve a second chance, and that my record is not that of a sock puppet who is only here to disrupt. I am here to stick to wikipedia principles, and I do take on board constructive criticism. I am only robust with those who will not stick to the three tenets of wikipedia. I said that I am not a sock puppet, and I deserve a second chance after all the hassle that has been directed at me. Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk) 22:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- "but I can remove one of the accounts, or just stop using one of them." (Johnmcintyre1959)
- Is there any issue for you to disclose what is the other account in stating the link on both user pages ?
-
Pluto2012 (
talk)
06:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that either have a user page. I have named the other account above it is theredheifer.
Johnmcintyre1959 (
talk)
06:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Johnmcintyre1959,
-
Theredheifer was already a sock a proven by his first edit...
Pluto2012 (
talk)
07:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- That looks like a very sensible change to me that any user could do, after no more than 5 minutes reading the basic rules of wikipedia. As I have said, it really is not very difficult to pick up the rules. I think it is the refusal of real sock puppets (I looked that term up) to actually do any reading before they post that makes anyone who just applies a bit of effort seem so extraordinary. Do you have actually have any difficulty with this first post? In your opinion does it break any rule of wikipedia? Has it been reverted, or challenged since? If the answers are no, then how is it evidence for anything other than good wikipedia practice? If I really am a sock puppet of a previously banned editor then you can expect me to either 1) have stopped breaking wikipedia rules, or 2) revert to the former ways and get banned again. There is nothing to lose and a great deal to gain by letting me stay. As Gary Hart said, put a watch on my flies!!!
Johnmcintyre1959 (
talk)
09:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- That edit is not a problem at first sight but it is not the question. That was the 1st edit of this account and no new account could have made such a comment. The problem is that you are suspected of being a banned contributor. You should disclose all your socks or argue why not and instead of doing so, you lied.
Pluto2012 (
talk)
05:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That edit is the question, because you raised it. It is an edit that any new editor could do, if they first spent some time reading wikipedia. I am not a sock. I had an account. lost the password and started another. You claim that I have lied about that. Please show where that is? I have not lied and I did not answer the question as to previous accounts, as I did not think it was against the rules. Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk) 06:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That edit is not a problem at first sight but it is not the question. That was the 1st edit of this account and no new account could have made such a comment. The problem is that you are suspected of being a banned contributor. You should disclose all your socks or argue why not and instead of doing so, you lied.
Pluto2012 (
talk)
05:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That looks like a very sensible change to me that any user could do, after no more than 5 minutes reading the basic rules of wikipedia. As I have said, it really is not very difficult to pick up the rules. I think it is the refusal of real sock puppets (I looked that term up) to actually do any reading before they post that makes anyone who just applies a bit of effort seem so extraordinary. Do you have actually have any difficulty with this first post? In your opinion does it break any rule of wikipedia? Has it been reverted, or challenged since? If the answers are no, then how is it evidence for anything other than good wikipedia practice? If I really am a sock puppet of a previously banned editor then you can expect me to either 1) have stopped breaking wikipedia rules, or 2) revert to the former ways and get banned again. There is nothing to lose and a great deal to gain by letting me stay. As Gary Hart said, put a watch on my flies!!!
Johnmcintyre1959 (
talk)
09:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that either have a user page. I have named the other account above it is theredheifer.
Johnmcintyre1959 (
talk)
06:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- As the filer says, a CU is not possible.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
-
Blocked and tagged on behavioural evidence alone. They wide array of common article topics but also common user talk pages like
User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy (see
[8]); the word for word use of about a dozen edit summaries including punctuation that are routinely used by both accounts; mobile editing; and
Special:Diff/686459249 all point towards sock puppetry.
Mkdw
talk
07:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Adding Theredheifer ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) confirmed by Johnmcintyre1959 (above) as other account. Same behavioural hallmarks: interaction pattern across a wide array of common articles such as Child sacrifice (common across four compared accounts); edit summaries such as " removed extraneous word."; mobile editing; and mostly removal and patrolling for RS and POV related issues. Mkdw talk 07:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
16 June 2016
Suspected sockpuppets
- Maureendepresident ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
- Apparent sleeper account, reactivated less than one week after previous sock was blocked. (Previous sock blocked 8 January 2016, current sock reactivated 07:30, 14 January 2016 with this edit to Jewish Defense League)
- Jewish Defense League was one of the last articles previous sock managed to edit before being blocked: [9]
- Constant references to "RS" and "NPOV" in edit summaries. Too many examples - check edit histories: current suspected sock, previous sock, alternate sock. Probably half the edits mention "POV", "NPOV" or "RS" in some way.
- Certain key words in edit summaries, like "encyclopaedic" (note the "ae") (Current sock: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], previous socks [15] [16] [17] [18]), phrases like "more accurate." (note the period) and variations thereof (Current sock: [19] [20] [21] [22], previous socks: [23] [24] [25] [26]) etc.
- [27] - Interest in child sacrifice, a Dalai lama ding dong shibboleth - see SPI archive.
Unfortunately, it is too late for a CheckUser. I hope this behavioral evidence is adequate. AnotherNewAccount ( talk) 12:15, 16 June 2016 (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
Looks like a duck to me. Maureendepresident has a highly implausible number of page overlaps with Johnmcintyre1959 and Theredheifer in a narrow subject, and all three accounts use a nearly identical edit summary style. Have a look at
their summaries on
Jewish diaspora. Admin: please block this sock.
Ivanvector
🍁 (
talk)
13:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked per request. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
19 September 2016
Suspected sockpuppets
- Guns of brixham ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
I received a tip that the above user is a sock of Dalai lama ding dong et al. Investigating, I found the following evidence:
- Article overlap: 7 article overlap with recent sock User:Maureendepresident; 6 with User:Theredheifer; 5 with User:Johnmcintyre1959; 3 with User:IRISZOOM; 2 with the original master, including Nuremberg laws. Pretty much all the articles are on Jewish subject matter.
- On Nuremberg laws, both Dalai lama ding dong and Guns of brixham added similar content on how the laws relate to Gypsies: Dalai lama ding dong addition; similar Guns of brixham addition; similar Guns of brixham addition.
- Time of day: Guns of brixham, Dalai lama ding dong, Maureendepresident, Johnmcintyre1959, Theredheifer all edited at the same time of day (16:00 to 24:00 UTC).
- Account creation: Maureendepresident was blocked June 17, 2016, and Guns of brixham was created about two weeks later, on July 3.
- Edit summaries: Guns of brixham mentions "RS" in almost every edit summary. The socks Maureendepresident and Theredheifer used it a lot too. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 02:32, 19 September 2016 (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
- CheckUser is
Inconclusive.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
10:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC) -
Administrator note I'm familiar with this case. We've historically had difficulties tying the accounts together through CU. There's enough evidence here behaviourally including the activation of the latest sock puppet. Blocking this latest sock under
WP:DUCK and marking as closed.
Mkdw
talk
21:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
10 January 2023
Suspected sockpuppets
- Pngeditor ( 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 • SPI Tools
Well except user have pretty much expansive artile overlap with the master I also took one of the socks to compare. [28] The user have pretty much two distinct interests Judaism and I/P conflict. Like the master he have negative view on Judaism and Pro-Palestinian POV (if needed I bring diffs). There is also more similarities that I don't want to bring here but if you look at user contribs its pretty much clear I can send mail if needed. I ask for CU as the user usually edits from Scotland but things may have changed during the time passed maybe there is something in archives to compare(note there is some IPs in suspected category) Shrike ( talk) 10:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ User:RoySmith I will send you an email Shrike ( talk) 15:40, 10 January 2023 (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
-
Check declined by a checkuser - The last
Dalai lama ding dong sock was over 6 years ago. Having extensive overlap on articles about Judaism and I/P conflict describe a lot of people. You'll need to provide more specific evidence to justify CU; "just look at user contribs" isn't good enough. --
RoySmith
(talk)
15:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- I got some additional evidence off-wiki which might end up justifying CU, but I haven't come to a conclusion on that yet. I've got some feelers out for a 2O. --
RoySmith
(talk)
13:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Based on the data sent to me (with some help from
MarioGom analyzing it), I ran a check after all. Everything is stale, but there were enough hints in some historical data to corroborate the behavioral similarities; I'll call it
Likely on the combined behavioral and CU evidence. --
RoySmith
(talk)
19:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Based on the data sent to me (with some help from
MarioGom analyzing it), I ran a check after all. Everything is stale, but there were enough hints in some historical data to corroborate the behavioral similarities; I'll call it
- I got some additional evidence off-wiki which might end up justifying CU, but I haven't come to a conclusion on that yet. I've got some feelers out for a 2O. --
RoySmith
(talk)
13:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Dalai lama ding dong
- Dalai lama ding dong ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 October 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Dalai lama ding dong is a notorious sockpuppeter, who edits Judaism-related articles and Israeli-Arab conflict articles. 31.53.232.98 has already begun editing Judaism-related articles (his edits are against Judaism or Jewish figures) after editing an Israeli-Arab article; these are their first three edits. On the article List of massacres in Israel, he tells us to see the talk to support the change, where a now blocked sockpuppet of Dalai lama ding dong said that this should be removed. Now the sock comes along and makes this edit.
Also, all three IPs are from exactly the same place in England, which is common amongst Dalai's socks and suspected socks (see User:86.174.199.216, User:90.211.19.178, and other IP socks of his).
-- Jethro B 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Jethro B 18:54, 14 October 2012 (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
Made a couple of protections. Unfortunately, he/she is editing from BT, so no rangeblock possible. Elockid ( Talk) 15:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
22 October 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Both Dalai Lama Ding Dong and this IP address edit from the same location, and show an interest in either Jewish-related articles or Israel-Arab conflict related articles. Here is the IP's [ second edit], for example.
Dalai lama ding dong is a notorious sockpuppeter who has been sockuppeting for months. Here is another recent SPI I opened against him (and succeeded in it).
-- Jethro B 23:26, 22 October 2012 (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
Clearly related to the previous IPs, but this is not an actionable case since these IPs are very very dynamic and the pages themselves don't appear to be frequent targets. – Steel 19:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
26 December 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
IP hopping edit warrior with Brazilian IP which is obviously the indefinitely blocked notorious editor known as Dalai lama ding dong / BilalSaleh / Guinsberg. We need to take care of this quickly because the user is causing a huge mayhem with multiple IP addresses and blatant violations of 1RR in sensitive topic areas. Marokwitz ( talk) 20:55, 26 December 2012 (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
- I've blocked both IPs for one week based on WP:DUCK. They are static IPs.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
-
Clerk declined - Can't use CU on IPs.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER
23:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Bbb23 has taken care of it, thus closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Note, these users are probably related to Guinsberg ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Bilalsahel ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki), as noted on User talk:186.212.143.98, another blocked sock, but all may or may not be actually related to DLDD. As these are IPs an not registered accounts, just noting in archive rather than moving. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
01 January 2013
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Do not collect ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Probably not connected to User:Guinsberg/ USER:BilalSaleh and any of the Brazilian IP but rather to Scotland's IP of British telecom except concentrating on Israeli/Jewish topics [1] there are quite few similarities that I rather not reveal per WP:BEANS but I will send to any CU or clerk Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- You email is not enabled anyhow like I said they not connected to User:Guinsberg/ USER:BilalSaleh this was some mistake as it different sock master.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 05:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)'
- I have sent you an email-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 06:37, 2 January 2013 (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
-
Clerk endorsed - Strike that, there is in fact a sock that isn't stale:
User:Guinsberg. Endorsing for CU, to ensure that this is indeed socking. (
X! ·
talk) ·
@243 ·
04:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
-
Check declined by a checkuser. 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:
- 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.
- At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
- 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. T. Canens ( talk) 06:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Got the email and saw enough for a check.
Do not collect (
talk ·
contribs) is
Unrelated to
Guinsberg (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki), which does appear to be a case of mistaken identity. (Can a passing clerk please retag that account and
BilalSaleh (
talk ·
contribs)?) Comparing to the data in the CU logs and the earlier IPs in the archives, it's Possible that Do not collect is DLDD, but I can't make a more definitive connection than that.
T. Canens (
talk)
09:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
-
Clerk note: I've retagged the two above accounts. However, I don't really see enough evidence to block Do Not Collect yet. While some aspects certainly look suspicious, there is no overlap in the accounts, so I can't really place a block yet. Closing.
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
15:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
27 August 2014
- Suspected sockpuppets
- GGranddad ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- IRISZOOM ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
*
AcidSnow (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
IRISZOOM joined the argument on the talk page of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict minutes after GGrandad was blocked, defending restoration of GGranddad's last edit (by AcidSnow) making a point very similar to GGrandad's: here and here. The user did not contribute to the talk page previously. From a look at the other user's contributions, they seem to be primarily on the Israel-Palestine subject, as I've read was Dalai lama ding dong's interest. I am not a linguist, but in general the writing styles of the IRISZOOM and GGranddad seem similar here is an example - although I did not corespond with IRISZOOM much. I cannot check the geographic location of the user, therefore I submit my speculations for your review.
- After corresponding more with
IRISZOOM
here, I'm convinced they are the same person. If one removes the signatures from the discussion, it's impossible to tell where GGranddad's statements end and where IRISZOOM's begin, same argument and choice of words:
- GGranddad: "Actually two of them state that and they were.The percentage of civilians is only disputed by Israel. I see no need to remove well sourced factual information, the sources back up what has been written in the article"
- IRISZOOM: "As I've said, just because Israel and some others dispute the numbers doesn't mean that we don't report the overwhelmingly view which is that most of the dead were Palestinian civilians."
- WarKosign ( talk) 07:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have much less basis to suspect AcidSnow, only
restoring GGranddad's last edit minutes after the user being blocked, and somewhat of an interest in the same subject - although with much more focus on Somalia. Again, the user can be cleared easily based IP location by someone who has access to this information.
WarKosign (
talk)
21:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've looked at some of AcidSnow's posts and the writing style seems very different. I have no more basis to suspect him. AcidSnow, sorry for the suspicion, it's not personal WarKosign ( talk) 08:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The evidence here is silly. Yes, I did and continue to say that Palestinian casualties shouldn't be diminished but that doesn't mean I am the same person behind accounts who have a similiar position. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 22:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Having interacted with both, I would not be surprised to learn IRISZOOM and GGranddad are one and the same. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 17:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
AcidSnow
So this is what happens when I make a few edits outside Somali related ones? I get accused of being a sock? You have to come up something better than that! AcidSnow ( talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Technically
Unrelated. Diffs are similar but definitely are different users from a technical basis.
NativeForeigner
Talk
04:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
12 October 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
I am not too familiar with Dalai lama ding dong, because he is probably the only non-Israeli-POV prolific sockpuppet active in this area. However, I have my suspicions about this editor. First was to an AfD. Editing times are quite similar to previously blocked socks, and to Dalai lama ding dong themselves. Some similarities in topics related to Judaism and Israel/Palestine related articles etc. with somewhat similar edit summaries ( diff, diff, JohnMcintyre , Do not collect, diff). There is no non-stale sock going back a year, so I don't know if a CU is possible. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I think the suspicions are spot on. I have some additional evidence that I would be happy to e-mail , per WP:BEANS. Bad Dryer ( talk) 18:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I became suspicious because Johnmcintyre is so new here and it just seems incredible to me that he can edit with such speed and facility, not to mention knowing all kinds of Wikipedia jargon and stuff like just how to word things so he can pass off a POV disruption as a flaw in the sourcing. The similarity of approach by User:InedibleHulk and User:Johnmcintyre1959 in challenging User:Bolter21 edits at List of terrorist incidents, 2015 in early October made me wonder if they might be the same person. As did the similarity of approach between User:Johnmcintyre1959's approach at Lions' Gate stabbings and User:InedibleHulk 's approach at 2015 Parramatta shooting. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Also here. Twice Johnmcintyre1959 accuses this editor of using "unsourced" contant on a list, [2], [3]. Fairly arcane list. Just hours later, Inediblehulk chimes in alleging the use of unsourced content [4]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am unsure of what relevance the above has. Inediblehulk is plainly not a Dalai lama ding dong sock. They have 30,000 edits. If you are alleging that the sockmaster is not Dalai lama ding dong but Inediblehulk, it is best to open a new SPI. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Plus he's an awfully fast learner to be taking stuff to notice boards
[5] s soon after he began editing.
Looks like a duck to me
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
19:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Please note that the user has basically admitted that he is a returning user who has been banned, but believes he deserves a "second chance". See:
- User:Bad Dryer makes an important point. Plus, when asked repeatedly on his talk page, buy me and by other editors about previous accounts, editor did not deny having had them. He just didn't respond. Odd, because before this investigation started he actively responded, countered everything. He has been lying low during this procedure. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is sock puppetry, but I did have a previous account, as theredheifer. I lost the password, and therefore started a new account. Is this what I am accused of? Should I have declared that earlier? I have not used the two accounts at the same time to post. I found that an old laptop had the password saved, and I checked the red heifer page a couple of days ago, but I can remove one of the accounts, or just stop using one of them, by deleting the password from the password vault. I am knowledgable because I read up on how to do something first. I don't think that things that are supposed to show that I have been a previous user are actually that difficult to grasp. The no OR, always provide an RS, are not complicated to understand. It annoys me that there is a lot of OR in the areas I am interested in. I would like to remain as a wikipedia editor, and I do not believe I have been disruptive. I think that certain users are not happy at being challenged for what I consider to be OR, and cannot understand that it does not take long to learn the rules here, and therefore they do not expect to be challenged by what seems to be a new user. If you follow the debates you pick it up pretty quick. The rules here are really very very simple to grasp. As to claims about quick response times, doesn't that just show that someone is interested? I have slowed down editing, as I do not know what happens next. Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk) 20:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I may be banned, but for heavens sake, your use of the word hero in this sentence is pure OR. = I may get banned for this. Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk)
Ki, please check my recent editing record. I stick to RS, and I stick to the what is in the sources. I remove OR, and therefore request that you support me coming in from the cold, and being allowed to remain on wikipedia. I argue that I deserve a second chance, and that my record is not that of a sock puppet who is only here to disrupt. I am here to stick to wikipedia principles, and I do take on board constructive criticism. I am only robust with those who will not stick to the three tenets of wikipedia. I said that I am not a sock puppet, and I deserve a second chance after all the hassle that has been directed at me. Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk) 22:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- "but I can remove one of the accounts, or just stop using one of them." (Johnmcintyre1959)
- Is there any issue for you to disclose what is the other account in stating the link on both user pages ?
-
Pluto2012 (
talk)
06:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that either have a user page. I have named the other account above it is theredheifer.
Johnmcintyre1959 (
talk)
06:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Johnmcintyre1959,
-
Theredheifer was already a sock a proven by his first edit...
Pluto2012 (
talk)
07:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- That looks like a very sensible change to me that any user could do, after no more than 5 minutes reading the basic rules of wikipedia. As I have said, it really is not very difficult to pick up the rules. I think it is the refusal of real sock puppets (I looked that term up) to actually do any reading before they post that makes anyone who just applies a bit of effort seem so extraordinary. Do you have actually have any difficulty with this first post? In your opinion does it break any rule of wikipedia? Has it been reverted, or challenged since? If the answers are no, then how is it evidence for anything other than good wikipedia practice? If I really am a sock puppet of a previously banned editor then you can expect me to either 1) have stopped breaking wikipedia rules, or 2) revert to the former ways and get banned again. There is nothing to lose and a great deal to gain by letting me stay. As Gary Hart said, put a watch on my flies!!!
Johnmcintyre1959 (
talk)
09:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- That edit is not a problem at first sight but it is not the question. That was the 1st edit of this account and no new account could have made such a comment. The problem is that you are suspected of being a banned contributor. You should disclose all your socks or argue why not and instead of doing so, you lied.
Pluto2012 (
talk)
05:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That edit is the question, because you raised it. It is an edit that any new editor could do, if they first spent some time reading wikipedia. I am not a sock. I had an account. lost the password and started another. You claim that I have lied about that. Please show where that is? I have not lied and I did not answer the question as to previous accounts, as I did not think it was against the rules. Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk) 06:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That edit is not a problem at first sight but it is not the question. That was the 1st edit of this account and no new account could have made such a comment. The problem is that you are suspected of being a banned contributor. You should disclose all your socks or argue why not and instead of doing so, you lied.
Pluto2012 (
talk)
05:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That looks like a very sensible change to me that any user could do, after no more than 5 minutes reading the basic rules of wikipedia. As I have said, it really is not very difficult to pick up the rules. I think it is the refusal of real sock puppets (I looked that term up) to actually do any reading before they post that makes anyone who just applies a bit of effort seem so extraordinary. Do you have actually have any difficulty with this first post? In your opinion does it break any rule of wikipedia? Has it been reverted, or challenged since? If the answers are no, then how is it evidence for anything other than good wikipedia practice? If I really am a sock puppet of a previously banned editor then you can expect me to either 1) have stopped breaking wikipedia rules, or 2) revert to the former ways and get banned again. There is nothing to lose and a great deal to gain by letting me stay. As Gary Hart said, put a watch on my flies!!!
Johnmcintyre1959 (
talk)
09:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that either have a user page. I have named the other account above it is theredheifer.
Johnmcintyre1959 (
talk)
06:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- As the filer says, a CU is not possible.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
-
Blocked and tagged on behavioural evidence alone. They wide array of common article topics but also common user talk pages like
User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy (see
[8]); the word for word use of about a dozen edit summaries including punctuation that are routinely used by both accounts; mobile editing; and
Special:Diff/686459249 all point towards sock puppetry.
Mkdw
talk
07:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Adding Theredheifer ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) confirmed by Johnmcintyre1959 (above) as other account. Same behavioural hallmarks: interaction pattern across a wide array of common articles such as Child sacrifice (common across four compared accounts); edit summaries such as " removed extraneous word."; mobile editing; and mostly removal and patrolling for RS and POV related issues. Mkdw talk 07:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
16 June 2016
Suspected sockpuppets
- Maureendepresident ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
- Apparent sleeper account, reactivated less than one week after previous sock was blocked. (Previous sock blocked 8 January 2016, current sock reactivated 07:30, 14 January 2016 with this edit to Jewish Defense League)
- Jewish Defense League was one of the last articles previous sock managed to edit before being blocked: [9]
- Constant references to "RS" and "NPOV" in edit summaries. Too many examples - check edit histories: current suspected sock, previous sock, alternate sock. Probably half the edits mention "POV", "NPOV" or "RS" in some way.
- Certain key words in edit summaries, like "encyclopaedic" (note the "ae") (Current sock: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], previous socks [15] [16] [17] [18]), phrases like "more accurate." (note the period) and variations thereof (Current sock: [19] [20] [21] [22], previous socks: [23] [24] [25] [26]) etc.
- [27] - Interest in child sacrifice, a Dalai lama ding dong shibboleth - see SPI archive.
Unfortunately, it is too late for a CheckUser. I hope this behavioral evidence is adequate. AnotherNewAccount ( talk) 12:15, 16 June 2016 (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
Looks like a duck to me. Maureendepresident has a highly implausible number of page overlaps with Johnmcintyre1959 and Theredheifer in a narrow subject, and all three accounts use a nearly identical edit summary style. Have a look at
their summaries on
Jewish diaspora. Admin: please block this sock.
Ivanvector
🍁 (
talk)
13:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked per request. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
19 September 2016
Suspected sockpuppets
- Guns of brixham ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
I received a tip that the above user is a sock of Dalai lama ding dong et al. Investigating, I found the following evidence:
- Article overlap: 7 article overlap with recent sock User:Maureendepresident; 6 with User:Theredheifer; 5 with User:Johnmcintyre1959; 3 with User:IRISZOOM; 2 with the original master, including Nuremberg laws. Pretty much all the articles are on Jewish subject matter.
- On Nuremberg laws, both Dalai lama ding dong and Guns of brixham added similar content on how the laws relate to Gypsies: Dalai lama ding dong addition; similar Guns of brixham addition; similar Guns of brixham addition.
- Time of day: Guns of brixham, Dalai lama ding dong, Maureendepresident, Johnmcintyre1959, Theredheifer all edited at the same time of day (16:00 to 24:00 UTC).
- Account creation: Maureendepresident was blocked June 17, 2016, and Guns of brixham was created about two weeks later, on July 3.
- Edit summaries: Guns of brixham mentions "RS" in almost every edit summary. The socks Maureendepresident and Theredheifer used it a lot too. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 02:32, 19 September 2016 (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
- CheckUser is
Inconclusive.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs)
10:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
-
Administrator note I'm familiar with this case. We've historically had difficulties tying the accounts together through CU. There's enough evidence here behaviourally including the activation of the latest sock puppet. Blocking this latest sock under
WP:DUCK and marking as closed.
Mkdw
talk
21:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
10 January 2023
Suspected sockpuppets
- Pngeditor ( 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 • SPI Tools
Well except user have pretty much expansive artile overlap with the master I also took one of the socks to compare. [28] The user have pretty much two distinct interests Judaism and I/P conflict. Like the master he have negative view on Judaism and Pro-Palestinian POV (if needed I bring diffs). There is also more similarities that I don't want to bring here but if you look at user contribs its pretty much clear I can send mail if needed. I ask for CU as the user usually edits from Scotland but things may have changed during the time passed maybe there is something in archives to compare(note there is some IPs in suspected category) Shrike ( talk) 10:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ User:RoySmith I will send you an email Shrike ( talk) 15:40, 10 January 2023 (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
-
Check declined by a checkuser - The last
Dalai lama ding dong sock was over 6 years ago. Having extensive overlap on articles about Judaism and I/P conflict describe a lot of people. You'll need to provide more specific evidence to justify CU; "just look at user contribs" isn't good enough. --
RoySmith
(talk)
15:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- I got some additional evidence off-wiki which might end up justifying CU, but I haven't come to a conclusion on that yet. I've got some feelers out for a 2O. --
RoySmith
(talk)
13:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Based on the data sent to me (with some help from
MarioGom analyzing it), I ran a check after all. Everything is stale, but there were enough hints in some historical data to corroborate the behavioral similarities; I'll call it
Likely on the combined behavioral and CU evidence. --
RoySmith
(talk)
19:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Based on the data sent to me (with some help from
MarioGom analyzing it), I ran a check after all. Everything is stale, but there were enough hints in some historical data to corroborate the behavioral similarities; I'll call it
- I got some additional evidence off-wiki which might end up justifying CU, but I haven't come to a conclusion on that yet. I've got some feelers out for a 2O. --
RoySmith
(talk)
13:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)