Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fajkfnjsak: Difference between revisions

Line 69: Line 69:

—-<!— All comments go ABOVE this line, please. –>

—-<!— All comments go ABOVE this line, please. –>

===07 October 2025===

===07 October 2025===

{{SPI case status|open}}

{{SPI case status|}}

====Suspected sockpuppets====

====Suspected sockpuppets====

* {{checkuser|1=Fajkfnjsak (2)}} ({{clerknote}} originally filed under this user)

* {{checkuser|1=Fajkfnjsak (2)}} ({{clerknote}} originally filed under this user)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fajkfnjsak/Archive.

21 June 2025

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

This user shows a number of suspicious connections to Fajkfnjsak and especially their most recent socks since 2024, the last of which was community banned just a few months ago. The following are the main striking coincidences I find between the accounts:

• The user’s edits have focused mostly on plant-related pages and on Bible-related pages. Significantly, Fajkfnjsak’s latest sock was called PlantGirl.De (talk · contribs) and their edits also focused mostly on plant-related and Bible-related pages. (Notice also that the user’s account was created shorly after this sock was banned).
• The user’s edits on Bible pages reveal the same POV and interest as Fajkfnjsak and their socks: mainly, an obsession with the historicity of Biblical narratives (in particular, saying that they are not historical). I’ll also note that the user’s high volume of editing across multiple articles and within a relatively short time frame is something that characterized all of Fajkfnjsak’s recent socks starting from IncandescentBliss (talk · contribs) onwards.
• As in previous cases, the suspected sock puppet has made multiple edits which are very similar to those of Fajkfnjsak’s recent socks; compare: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]; Fajkfnjsak’s socks: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].
• As has been recently shown by Zefr (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AintItFunLiving, the user has also made use of multiple IPs. Their addresses coincide with that of other IPs previously used by Fajkfnjsak. Searching with this website, I have found that 2600:100c:b0a7:dc3d:751b:28bc:f0b7:6528 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as the other IPs are from the state of Texas, United States. The same location is given for 2600:100C:B0AF:363D:F518:E115:4EC6:2E6D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2600:100C:B0AC:A9B4:E983:E0DA:2F98:914E (talk · contribs · WHOIS), two IPs who were also previously found to be socks of Fajkfnjsak. Potatín5 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have noticed another suspicious similarity to Fajkfnjsak: AintItFunLiving has been persistently trying to edit the article on the resurrection of Jesus to say that the narrative is mythical/unhistorical (e.g., [21], [22]), something that Fajkfnjsak starting from his original account also did (e.g. [23], [24]). Also notice another set of similar edits by AintItFunLiving ([25]) and PlantGirl.De ([26]) in Ruth (biblical figure). Note to @Asilvering and @Izno. Potatín5 (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is another IP [27] that just popped up today which also has the same interests, behaviors and edit summaries (terminology and style) as AintItFunLiving/PlantGirl.De/IncandescentBliss that have been highlighted in their respective investigations: high volume of editing across multiple articles and within a relatively short time frame, obssessing over the lead to body and body to lead, another obsession with the historicity of Biblical narratives (in particular, saying that they are not historical), a clear distaste for religious sources (e.g. [28]), a very similar edit to AintItFunLiving on Sodom and Gomorrah (compare: [29] to [30]), etc… And finally, all these IPs’ addresses always begin with “2600:100C:B0”, which makes it clear that this user is constantly trying to evade their blockade through the usage of these different IPs. I request any Clerk, CheckUser, and/or admin to take action against these evasions. Note to @Asilvering and @Izno. Potatín5 (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have searched with this website again and found that 2600:100C:B0AA:3A4C:4048:2A4C:350F:1130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as the other three IPs that have recently appeared (mentioned below) are also from the state of Texas, United States. @Asilvering and @Izno. Potatín5 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a fifth recent IP [31], with yet another address beginning with “2600:100C:B0”, that just popped up today and which also has the same behaviors and edit summaries (terminology and style) highlighted previously. Even uses the same unique terminology employed by the IP 27 (“Sourced in body”, “cited in body”, etc) and has made edits very similar to IP 27; compare: [32] to [33].

  Asilvering: Ok, sorry for the inconvenience.–Potatín5 (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a sixth IP [34], with yet another address beginning with “2600:100C:B0”, that just popped up a few days ago and has the same behaviors (obssessing over the lead to body and body to lead, saying that Biblical narratives are not historical, dismissal of sources based on their age) and edit summaries with the same unique terminology (“Sourced in body”) that have been previously highlighted. The IP even made a highly similar edit to AintItFunLiving in Book of Exodus (compare: [35] to [36]). Given how the sockmaster is constantly returning with more and more of these IPs, I would suggest any admin to consider imposing a range block on this group of IP addresses.–Potatín5 (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As has been noticed by Zefr below, user @TranquilityBanquet is another likely sock of Fajkfnjsak as shown by the following correspondences with their other recent socks:

  • The user’s edits have focused mostly on plant-related pages and on Bible-related pages, just like in the cases of PlantGirl.De and AintItFunLiving.
  • The user has all the same behaviours that have characterized virtually all of Fajkfnjsak’s recent socks starting from IncandescentBliss onwards: high volume of editing across multiple articles and within a relatively short time frame, obssessing over the lead to body and body to lead, questioning the historicity of Biblical narratives, dismissing sources based on their age and edit summaries with the same unique terminology (“Outdated”, “Better summary of source”, “NPOV”, etc).
  • As in previous cases, the suspected sock puppet has made edits on Bible-related pages which are very similar to those of other recent socks; compare: [37], [38], [39]; Fajkfnjsak’s socks: [40], [41], [42].
  • The user account was created on 16 September just after IP 2600:100C:B03E:9301:551B:3A1E:A824:B4D1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which I have already identified as another likely sock of Fajkfnjsak, ceased editing at 08:57. Then, at 09:49 the registered account stopped editing on the page Josiah and the IP inmediately continued editing that same page. This betrays the sockmaster’s pattern of editing through multiple IPs and other sock accounts to evade their blockade. Potatín5 (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for the excellent background research above by Potatín5 on suspected sockpuppet AintItFunLiving whose talk page has this conspicuous similarity to the preference for debate on religion articles by Fajkfnsak. Zefr (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that a quick look their contributions, AintItFunLiving [43], PlantGirl.De [44], IncandescentBliss [45] all obssess over the lead to body and body to lead in religious and plant articles, with clear distaste for religious sources, publishers, and authors as outdated, outside mainstream, fringe, unreliable, etc often removing them. Also often claim they are doing NPOV on these religous articles and leads. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an IP [46] that just popped up a few days ago which has the same behaviors and edit summaries (terminology and style) I have highlighted in my comment above as AintItFunLiving, PlantGirl.De, IncandescentBliss. Even uses the same unique terminology (“lead bomb”) and relative age of source, for example compare both edit summaries in [47] & [48] to both in [49] & [50]. Its pretty clear to all other editors in this SPI case and SPI case below with all the other IPs, that Fajkfnjsak/PlantGirl.De/IncandescentBliss is clearly socking with AintItFunLiving and these IPs. Potatín5‘s latest comment above is worth noting as well. @Asilvering and @Izno Ramos1990 (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramos1990: Notice also these two IPs [51], [52] which were active respectively just before and just shortly after the other IP [40], edited pages identical to those edited by IP [46] (Sheba, Book of Judges, Epistle to Titus), share the same type of behaviors and edit summaries and have addresses which all begin with “2600:100C:B0”. Also note the similarity between the edits on the Book of Judges with those of Fajkfnjsak’s sock PlantGirl.De (compare: [53] to [54]). It’s clear that the sockmaster is editing through all these IPs (and others) to evade their blockade. Potatín5 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That such recent activity looks like sock puppet block evasion and the behaviors are the same. Seems to be engaging in some edit warring too with the 5th IP noted today (e.g. Historicity of the Bible). Ramos1990 (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Zefr request from yesterday [55] and Potatín5 that TranquilityBanquet looks like a new block evading sock puppet of Fajkfnjsak. Same behaviors. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both Izno and Asilvering have been working hard on other SPI issues in recent days, with appreciation for all that admins do.

For a day or two longer, we can await further assessment from one of them. I can submit a new report if their work away from this ‘closed’ investigation keeps them occupied elsewhere. Zefr (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

---

20 June 2025

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

… and other sock puppet IPs identified on the user’s talk page. This is a high-volume, multitopic user (or possibly multiple users?) who is careless about choosing accurate WP:MEDRS sources for medical content, typically throughout the user’s history by exaggerating altmed sources and interpreting weak sources in support of altmed revisions. The user is not logging in, apparently to subvert scrutiny, as mentioned by other editors on the talk page (see Logging in and MEDRS notes on talk page). It also seems possible that this is a multiple IP user project – the wide variety of topics, rapid nature, and high volume of editing (well over 1000 edits in the past 4 weeks) – seems unlikely for one new user and requires checking of every edit the associated IPs are making. See histories of reverts on Ginkgo biloba, Withania somnifera, Yohimbine, Corynanthe johimbe, Crataegus, Curcumin, Banisteriopsis caapi, Willow, Hypericum perforatum, and numerous others. Zefr (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See similar editing topics and behavior in a new SPI for blocked user Fajkfnjsak. If AintItFunLiving can add further explanation for that analysis, please explain below. Note to Izno. Zefr (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izno – TranquilityBanquet has editing behavior similar in topics, style, edit summaries, and talk page comments to AintitFunLiving and other Fajkfnjsak puppets. If it’s not asking too much of you after such a wide-ranging hunt-and-block series as above, could you do an IP check please? ‘asilvering’ reports an injury and limited editing at present, so I return to you.

Many of the edits by TranquilityBanquet are constructive and apparently in good faith. But one wonders about block evasion.

Thanks and regards – Zefr (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

AintItFunLiving has admitted that these IPs are their own. For example “Accidentally used IP for previous edit to this page” back in May when referring to their IP 2600:100C. All these IPs use the same writing style and have the same editing interest so are the same user. In June, AintItFunLiving received some warnings on their talk-page about the problematic edits they made on many medicine related articles. I believe they have abandoned their account temporally because it is being watched by other editors so they are trying to avoid detection by using these other mobile IP addresses. The behaviour is disruptive and is probably a violation of WP:SOCK as they are not editing in good faith on these disruptive IPs. It is obvious they are not accidently logging in on these IPs as they were already warned about this but took no notice. Veg Historian (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I welcome y’all to check all my edits. I didn’t notice the warning because I was on a different device and forgot my password for the main one. I’ll do all my edits here going forward. (I’d have to look one by one to see if all of these were me, but I have done some IP edits.) Not trying to hide anything. I have noticed quite a few articles that explain almost entirely the US perspective and/or cite mixed evidence as no evidence. If you check my record, I’ve contributed extensively to the lead sections of numerous pages usually without reversion. There’s a few plant pages that have attracted controversy—some due to a learning curve for me as a new editor and some due to legitimate debate over medical efficacy in sources. I’m not doing this for any ideological reasons, just evaluating these plants on my own time and updating Wikipedia as I go along. I write and think rapidly not as a tactic but simply because that’s how I operate as a person. I’m very into language precision and not having cited sources used to say things that are not actually stated in them. I noticed systemic bias toward US views and toward definite statements on lack of efficacy on several plant pages and sought to correct those en masse using international government sources and meta-analyses. I appreciate the time and effort high-volume editors have put into the Wikipedia project and seek to edit in a constructive way. I always welcome criticism and collaboration. AintItFunLiving (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s pretty much proven through behavioural evidence and possible technical data that you are Fajkfnjsak. I think this SPI should be merged with Fajkfnjsak as that was your main account. Veg Historian (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

---

07 October 2025

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

This is a case of likely successive block evasion beginning with blocked user, Fajkfnjsak (2nd case review) which was closed.

There are several IP addresses and other names that appear to be involved since about May 2025 in this succession: Fajkfnjsak -> AintItFunLiving + numerous IPs (stale) -> TranquilityBanquet (stale since 30 Sep) -> DataFocused.

The suspected socks have similar editing topics, similar editing style of high-volume edits over short periods, with similar edit summaries and talk page comments. The high-volume editing over short periods on various similar articles by each username above also raises suspicion that multiple unnamed editors outside of Wikipedia may be cooperating under one username.

The puppeteer may recognize there is SPI suspicion, then drop the name and create a new name, as can be discerned when editing activity by one user stopped, then a new user was created within a day or two, with a new username resuming the same or similar editing topics and behavior.

• TranquilityBanquet stopped editing on 30 Sep, the same day DataFocused created a new account. The 30 Sep date may have significance because it was the day I reported TranquilityBanquet to the Fajkfnjsak case. As I have interacted with each of the socks, my editing history and this report may be monitored by the puppeteer.

• AintItFunLiving is part of the Fajkfnjsak history, having stopped editing when scrutiny for Fajkfnjsak block evasion was raised; discussion at User talk:AintItFunLiving.

> Diffs: Similar editing with TranquilityBanquet on obsessive-compulsive disorder by Special:Diff/1296024925 and Special:Diff/1313431711

I acknowledge DataFocused (and TranquilityBanquet) have made some constructive edits, although there is an ongoing concern about each user: extending from AintItFunLiving, the suspected socks have edited religious topics, overinterpreted primary research, and used low-quality, non-MEDLINE sources in articles for neurological disorders.

> Diff: Special:Diff/1315330466 edited/removed overinterpretation and weak sources entered by DataFocused on sulforaphane.

Comments from other users re: religion editing by Fajkfnjsak/AintItFunLiving.

Admins can decide if these are connected successive block evaders originating from Fajkfnjsak, or if the contributions of the currently active user in the succession, DataFocused, justify the status quo. Zefr (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

---