Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Novonium/Archive


Novonium

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

27 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


On 2 January 2017, Novonium was blocked as a sock puppeteer. On 10 January 2017, Envale began creating accounts as their first edit, see here. The articles are all in the same areas of interest as Novonium, and all are similarly formatted, see Stefan Radt and Richard Godbeer as examples. Onel5969 TT me 17:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Odensalt started editing just after Envale was indef blocked for BLP issues on 17 March. (Envale has since been blocked as a sockpupet of Novonium) The pattern of Odensalt's edits is identical to Envale's: poorly sourced biographies on marginally notable people with persistently poor referencing style (URL inside square brackets as ref, so it isn't visible in the reflist; often multiple references to a single source, looking like multiple sources), and many short sections. PamD 15:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Additional information needed - @PamD: 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vanjagenije Hello, I found the diffs. - [1] and [2] The style of referencing is what caught my eye. Both of the users are putting the urls into singular square brackets. This can be a piece of evidence. Cheers, FriyMan talk 05:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: Sorry, I thought that the contributions lists would suffice. Odensalt's article creations are [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. Typical article creations from Envale are: [8], [9], [10], [11]. In each case the link is to the version of the article where the creating editor had stopped editing the article - ie the last of one or more versions they had created before any other editor or bot came in to help. PamD 09:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Newly registered editor creating large number of poorly formatted biographies of persons of doubtful notability, including characteristic bad referencing style which hides bare URLs within single square brackets, and lists of authors' works lacking any date, publisher or ISBN info. As seen in the work of recent sock Envale. PamD 15:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC) expanded 16:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Vinelet's creations: [12], [13], [14], [15] (in each case showing the article after their initial edits and before any other editor had improved it). Typical article creations from Envale are: [16], [17], [18], [19]. PamD 16:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

31 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Characteristic creation of many biographical articles on persons of questionable notability, with references presented as bare URLs in square brackets (producing useless list of references, with sources hidden), and lists of author's works without publisher, date, or ISBN, and no wikilinks to other articles. As seen in work of sockpuppet Envale. Examples include [20], [21], [22]; Typical article creations from Envale are: [23], [24], [25], [26]. PamD 18:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

05 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


User:Kasslert: Mass Creating sub standard stubs sometimes as fast as one a minute. Was warned several times to slow down, Has not responded and continued to create despite a threat of blocking. Was finally given a very short block (23:27, June 4, 2017) to stop the disruptive editing and to stimulate some response. Contributions

User:Briana Tang created an account within several minutes (23:42, June 4, 2017) of Kassiert being blocked and continued to create exactly the same kind of articles at the same speed Contributions.

Bloc evasion: Ducks quack loudly but as some of the articles might have some potential, I'm asking for CU because I don't want to block Briana Tang if I'm wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Articles by this group of editors have the same characteristics as those by sockpuppets of Novonium - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Novonium/Archive: many unlinked biog stubs, with multiple short sections, reference to Goodreads, and unhelpful reference style (bare URLs within square brackets). PamD 06:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compare article created by Envale and article created by Kasslert. (Envale being a sockpuppet of Novonium) PamD 07:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Kasslert and co are confirmed as sockpuppets of Novonium, then all the articles they have created should be deleted G5 (unless anyone else has edited substantially), so that this blocked editor does not have the satisfaction of seeing their creations in the encyclopedia. PamD 07:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

27 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Characteristic behaviour of Novonium sockpuppet: creation of biographical stubs on marginally notable people; consisting of multiple short sentences; using Goodreads as source of publications list; citing refs using bare URLs in square brackets to produce totally unhelpful listing in Reflist. See example here and here PamD 07:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristic behaviour of Novonium sockpuppet: creation of biographical stubs on marginally notable people; consisting of multiple short sentences; using Goodreads as source of publications list; citing refs using bare URLs in square brackets to produce totally unhelpful listing in Reflist. See examples here and here. PamD 07:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compare article created by confirmed sockpuppet User:Flenther. PamD 07:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I agree that editing styles of the confirmed sock & editor in this case appear oddly similar:

  • Holger Hoock, German-American historian (created Onsoele): bare goodreads author URLs in citations (repeated) & bare author website URL in ELs
  • Kiran Klaus Patel, German historian (created Flenther): bare goodreads author URL & bare author website URL in ELs

In addition each article upon construction had identical layout with slightly nonstandard section titles: Life, Career, Bibliography, References, External links. The bibliography section of each article contains identical leading phrase "His notable books are:..." - Bri (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm puzzled by this. In addition to goodreads, which is a notoriously unacceptable source, the ed. is using dictionary.com, but what the dictionary.com reprints is Gale, which is a very reliable source, and sometimes WorldCat, which is of course reliable also. The books are documented, the people are documented, and I could defend without any great problems the notability of most of the professors, even though most of them are not yet full professors. This could just as well be done legitimately with a single account. . I really can not understand the incredible persistence at doing this wrong, when it could so easily have been done right. If they were all from one university , I'd assume an incompetent PR staff member--I've seen that many times.If the latest books were all from one publisher, I'd assume an incompetent PR agent a the publisher--I've seen that even more frequently. If they were all in one field, I'd assume an incompetent PR staff member at a professional association--I've seen that before a few times also. It doesn't seem likely to be paid editing--most of these people would be very unlike to pay for an article in the enWP, and even an incompetent paid editor should have learned to it it adequately by now, in such a formulaic type of article. Sockpuppettry usually has some motivation or purpose. Even when the purpose is vandalism, these modest articles are not what vandals go in for. Does anyone have an idea? DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, puzzling - and infuriating, that despite much advice (eg at User talk:Envale), they don't change their poor editing habits. "(Born: 1952)"; dependence on Goodreads; no publisher or ISBN for any of the published books; unhelpful citation style with square brackets making the bare URLs invisible in reflist; no attempt to combine re-used references; bullet-point-type single-sentence paragraphs. But the content they add is thoroughly sourced. I can't see a pattern in their choice of topics. I wonder how many other editor names they've used, for how long. Presumably they enjoy seeing their creations in the encyclopedia, and/or think they are being genuinely constructive, despite the experience of seeing their past creations deleted G5 when we trace them. Very strange. Such a lot of their time being wasted, when they could become a useful editor if they would only read and take the advice offered. Though I suppose they'd have to get unblocked (as Novonium) first. PamD 08:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a mass deletion of the articles created by these sockpuppets (excluding those where other editors have added substantial content, rather than just copyediting), it should include the works of User:Envale, the first(?) sockpuppet, many of which are still in existence in their original form eg Richard Etulain. PamD 08:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Novonium tells us a little about himself here. PamD 08:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there's an interesting insight into his philosophy here: when invited to discuss his obscure reference formatting, he replies Regarding Formatting of Citations: I guess it's best to leave that work to the bots. For me, the researching and creation of articles has a higher priority than the fixing of citations. Since I get very little free time (I have a full time job you see), I realize that it's better to spend that time on the creation of articles. The correct formatting of citations is obvious and anyone can do it. The Real Challenge is in being able to FIND the most relevant citations in the first place, that is precisely what drew me to Wikipedia. A version of WP:IDHT PamD 09:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make one more attempt at communicating. I am also undecided about putting in the effort to do the rewriting--at least the minimum rewriting to establish the notability more clearly. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


28 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Characteristic article creation behaviour of established Novonium sockpuppets -example PamD 08:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Characteristic editing style: short sentences in separate paragraphs, references formatted in distinctively unhelpful style with square brackets round bare URLs. Example PamD 07:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Blocked but awaiting tags (all). I'll leave it to PamD to decide whether to tag articles G5. Probably a non native English user. Perhaps a CU should be done for sleepers? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed to flush other accounts. The last check only yielded one account but the previous two yielded many accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 May 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Has created several biographies which had earlier been deleted G5 in June/July 2017. Has identical editing style (many single-sentence paragraphs; references all presented as bare URLs inside square brackets so that they are invisible in reference list): compare this creation by Novonium and this by Oskosst. Does not reply to comments on talk page: I note that this was also a characteristic of Novonium. PamD 18:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On looking further, having refreshed my memory of the Novonium sock puppet archive:
Oskosst has created a large number of biographies since July 2017, all in the characteristic style of Novonium's sockpuppets. Examples from July 2017, Nov 2018, May 2020. Poor reference format, multiple citation of same ref, lists of publications with no date or publisher, reliance on "Good reads" for the publications of academics, multiple single-sentence paragraphs. PamD 19:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

It appears that the user Oskosst's edits are almost all relating to American and British people, and this is similar with Novonium. On the other hand, Novonium tends to edit about people from more nations than Oskosst, although they have an extremely similar way of writing, and considering that Novonium has been around for quite a few years, he probably knows that editing about exactly the same thing is going to make people realise what's going on (if it even is!), so IMO, he is a sockpuppet. Thanks, XLK123 (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Novonium/Archive