Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Visnelma/Archive

Visnelma

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

26 June 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Magister memoriae (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 • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Visnelma has been trying to add the claim to Beer Hall Putsch that Hitler was primarily inspired by Kemal Ataturk, and not by Mussolini's March on Rome, as the vast majority of historians say. They have not been able to get consensus on the talk page for these edits. Now, a brand new editor, just created, added the same information to the article as their first and only edit. No other editors have ever tried to insert this information, Visnelma is the only editor ever to attempt this. The fact that a brand new editor popped up to make the change when Visnelma has been stymied by a lack of consensus is telling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Visnelma: Considering that after a long discussion on the talk page in which no other editor supported your attempted change to the article, and what I think was an extremely clear explanation of why your edit violated FRINGE and DUE, the fact that you went ahead and made the change again without a consensus to do so under the pretense that it was a WP:BOLD edit, was sufficient grounds for me to launch the SPI without warning you first. If the current edit by Magister memoriae had happened and you had not previously done that, I would almost certainly have simply warned you -- in fact, I almost did it in this instance, but the apparent disregard for consensus was too blatant for me, so I didn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hi, I'd like to state that I have never attempted to do sockpuppetry in any Wikipedia. The user who re-added the info acts independently from me. I'm okay to this case being investigated but the real thing that irritated me was Beyond placing a formal warning on my talk page even without a checkuser confirming the claim.[1] Best regards. --V. E. (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: The problem here is that you warned me about sockpuppetry before a checkuser confirms your claim. You are currently just suspicious of me on sockpuppetry but you warned me as if it was proven that I did sockpuppetry. That's the problem here and it was very rude.--V. E. (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Visnelma: A standard template, {{uw-sockwarn}}, was used. If the language of that template needs adjusted, that's a separate issue. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: No I disagree. He should have used Uw-socksuspect. Using Uw-sockwarn is outright wrong and accusatory in this case as that account has no relationship with me in any way and the suspected relationship is not proven.--V. E. (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinselma: Please think about that you're saying: if what you claim is true, that you have no connection to the other account, you know that's the case, but I do not. You cannot legitimately take offense because I didn't act on the basis of what you knew but I didn't. In any case, if you hadn't gone off half-cocked and inserted the non-consensus material into the article despite the clear and unequivocal consensus that it shoudn't be added, my level of suspicion would not have been raised, so you have no one to blame but yourself.

I do not accept your complaint as having any legitimacy. Bottom line: next time, don't edit against consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I don't really care whether my relationship being investigated. The problem here is you treating me as a sockmaster without first getting your claim confirmed by a checkuser as the message you left on my talk page suggests. Your "level of suspicion" has nothing to do with lefting a warning message on my talk page without confirming it. Although this is the issue I put forward, you are attempting a strawman argument by saying as if I am talking about some kind of "my word against yours" case.--V. E. (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Insufficient evidence to take any action. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]