User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Archives
[megabytes]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

New sockpuppetry on Baruch Spinoza article

Hello @ToBeFree

How have you been? Hope you have been having a great new year.

Well, the sockpuppetry attacks again on Baruch Spinoza page. We managed to ban the disruptive users and their sock puppets as you can see here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Cornelis_Dopper and here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_GoneWithThePuffery in the past. However, we will never know how many sock puppets still exists and who is the final big sockmaster. Now the latest case of sock puppetry on the page. I identified more suck puppets who were trying to make the very same edits and disruptions we have had in the past (likely all of them are linked).

I have opened a new report using WP:SPI. Since we have been together fighting off the sockpuppetry on Baruch Spinoza page since the beginning, it'd be cool if you could help the page now again. This time is a pretty standard case of sockpuppetry, you can see my report here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidDijkgraaf PepGuardi (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much! I won't be able to have a look today, but it's good that it's at SPI and anyone can deal with it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for answering @ToBeFree. In fact, at SPI I requested a Check User, I wanted to confirm the country where this new sockpuppetry disruption is coming from. As we talked before, during former disruptions on the page caused by sock puppets, I have a feeling that all of them are from a sock puppets master we didn't caught yet. All of them always do the very same edit. Not surprisingly, the CU confirmed they are from the same country where it was located the other 7 sock puppets you helped to identify and ban. DavidDijkgraaf (master) is from the Netherlands, and the Check User confirmed that he and the newly created user Gybebaggy (sock puppet) are from the same country, using the CU words, "same small country". Of course, we will probably never be able to prove all of those many sock puppets are connected, but I wanted to share this with you since your kind support has been crucial all these years for the identification and ban of the sock puppets. CU confirmed both users are from the "small country", but due to different technical details, behavioural evidence needs evaluation so the ban can be applied. Thus I am describing bellow the evidences so you can make the evaluation.

This new sockpuppetry basically follows same pattern of those ones you helped to confirm and ban in the two former occasions: someone defends the word Dutch must be included, then there is an opposition, and then suddenly a newly created user gets in to defend that idea which found opposition.

Here you have me reverting the likely sockmaster (DavidDijkgraaf) edit and explaining due to previous consensus no Dutch nationality should be claimed (although he already knew it because there is a note explaining this in the text): http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Baruch_Spinoza&diff=1271669924&oldid=1271616019

Then he goes to the talk page and starts a discussion claiming "Dutch" should be included in there. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABaruch_Spinoza&diff=1271335527&oldid=1266582347

Then there is an opposition: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABaruch_Spinoza&diff=1271379004&oldid=1271374752 (see the opposition time: 20:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC))

Then suddenly a newly created user pops up on the discussion taking (of course) the side of sockmaster (DavidDijkgraaf) http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABaruch_Spinoza&diff=1271406498&oldid=1271382380 (now look at the time this happens: 22:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC).

Not surprisingly, when we check the user we find out its account was also created on 23 January 2025, the same day as the sockmaster (DavidDijkgraaf) started the dispute and found opposition. The newly created user very first edit is on that discussion. And after that, the new user disappears and makes no other contribution to any article. Equally not surprising, the CU has confirmed both are from the same country. PepGuardi (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the detailed analysis. I have blocked one of the accounts now and explained conditions I personally would have for blocking both (Special:Permalink/1272308231). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree So, when I noticed this today my first reaction was annoyance. This user has already accused me of edit warring and canvassing—two claims that could have been avoided by simply reading how these terms are defined in the guidelines. At this point it seems like he tries to make anything stick. However, I do actually agree that single-purpose accounts can be suspicious, especially when they are created precisely when a discussion begins or when they show an unusual familiarity with Wikipedia's workings. In fact, I have caught various sockpuppets in the past for exactly these reasons [1], which is why it would be highly unlikely that I would resort to such, seemingly obvious, tactics myself.

Anyway, isn't if fairly obvious that Gybebaggy is a sockpuppet of GoneWithThePuffery? They both left messages on my talk page in which they cite the exact same sources.[2][3] DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hadn't seen the similarity to GoneWithThePuffery yet. Their list of socks was mentioned at the beginning but it didn't look like a connection to them was alleged. Thanks DavidDijkgraaf! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

protection

Hello @ToBeFree

We were talking about sock puppets on Baruch Spinoza page, and you banned Gybebaggy as a result of that. Not surprisingly, few hours after you blocked it, an unknown user made exactly the same change (see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Baruch_Spinoza&diff=1272502522&oldid=1271763813) which the blocked user was asking for(see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABaruch_Spinoza&diff=1271406498&oldid=1271382380). Since those disruptions led to almost 10 sock puppets to be blocked (with your kind support) in the past year (all of them acting on Baruch Spinoza article), it’s too many confirmed cases of sock puppetry in a small period of time in a single page, I think a way to prevent this or at least mitigate it by now is protecting the the page. Could you protect it, please?

I open a request here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Baruch Spinoza. Sorry for be writing to you again, but I think you’re the one that understands the most how messy with sock puppetry that page has suffered in the past few months. I didn’t mentioned the level of protection I am asking for because I think you which one is more adequate, but I think it should be a protection that could really dissuade the continuous creation of so many sock puppets that we have seen in the past months. Thank you 🙂 PepGuardi (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PepGuardi, not everyone disagreeing with you is a sockpuppet, and the edit warring on that page really needs to stop. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]