Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SethRuebens/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | SethRuebens


SethRuebens

01 August 2020

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

The junior account popped up when the senior account was blocked briefly (and then indefinitely partially blocked) from editing Britannia (TV series). The junior account is editing only in the area that the senior account was and is also editing. It might be WP:MEAT or duck meat, so an examination of the feathers with a microscope may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

ETA: Concerning MEAT, senior account admitted discussing the talk page discussion with like-minded individuals off-Wiki: [1] and [2]PAVA11 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • CU is   Possible but this will need to be decided on behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with the filers that this looks suspicious (my money's on meat rather than sock). Ping JzG since you pblocked both of them from Britannia - got any thoughts here on whether these two are working together? GeneralNotability (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GeneralNotability, limited purpose accounts with very few edits, I don't know if this is sock or meat but sock is probably more likely as this obsession seems very singular - I googled it a few days ago and found no real evidence that this is a significant crusade. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on all available evidence, I'm pretty sure that they're related somehow - SPAs with similar POV-pushing on an obscure topic. According to their contribs, one is exclusively editing from mobile and one is exclusively non-mobile, that could either be two people or one person using two devices. Either way,   Blocked and tagged as suspected socks. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

28 January 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

IP is pushing the same claim that SethReubens was pushing back in July that Ben Krushkoff is somehow a cocreator of Britannia (TV series). IP uses similar language to Reubens such as the edit summary "Claim supported by multiple universities, subject experts and 1700+ signatories (for notability). Claims referenced by respected IP journalist in national business publication" diff very similar to edit summaries by SethReubens for instance "A number of academics and writers have publicly supported this claim, along with 1,500 signatories on an online petition. The videos detailing it have been seen by tens of thousands of people" diff. The editor appears to have a dynamic IP and its not advisable to block the 32 range as it has heavy traffic by other users. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the last active IP of this investigation, as I am sure that the two IP's on the RSN are the same person, and its very probable that the Britannia article IP is the same person. diff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The dynamic IP has returned stating that "Apologies for not being au fait with all of the Wiki rules (yes, I did post in the subject before,and hadn't realised" diff Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has now openly admitted to being SethRuebens diff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the IP has openly admitted to being the master (see below), does the original blocker @GeneralNotability: want to weigh in on this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Hemiauchenia, it appears that 2A04:4A43:407E:D8B9:0:0:82C:7404 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is also a suspected sockpuppet based on the most recent reply to the Reliable sources discussion. Tvcameraop (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvcameraop: I don't think he's deliberately changing his IP address. I think that he is just on a frequently shifting dynamic IP that seems to shift daily or more. All of the posts are on the 2A04:4A43:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range. Maybe a partial block of the range from the RSN and the Britannia (TV series) article would suffice? Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I posted previously under the name Seth Reuebens. As a new user (at the time, I still am relatively) I have apologised for not knowing the rules of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I did not realise I had a lifetime ban on posting here, which seems draconian and a restriction on my freedom of speech. Also, please note I strongly object to the attempted outing of my identity by TVCameraOp, which is a gross infringement of Wikipedia's privacy and harassment policies. I kindly ask anyone reading this to review that users contribution log and note the disproportional amount of edits of articles relating to Sky UK Ltd (it's programmes, business operations and members of staff). The edits I have made are ones that are clearly embarassing for Sky but are absoluty factual and verifiable. If this isn't a conflict of interest issue and a case of a corporation trying to silence the little man, I don't know what is. 2A04:4A43:417F:9A05:0:0:857:ED76 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

02 July 2021

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

SethRuebens is a single-purpose account who claims to be Ben Krushkoff and whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to add his claims that Krushkoff's work was plagiarized by the show writers to the article Britannia (TV series). SethRuebens was blocked in 2020 for sockpuppetry, and was unblocked by ArbCom with the restriction that he not edit the article (can use talk page). Today, BillsonBobletian, a new account, made the same edits[3] to the article that SethRuebens has been trying to add. BillsonBobletian[4] and IP[5] then resumed the same arguments on the article's talk page as SethRueben. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(added IP2) IP2, which geolocates to same as IP1, reveals itself to be Ben Krushkoff[6] and then changes the signature on the IP talk page comments to Seth Rueben[7]. Schazjmd (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

I was going to make a report as well. SethRuebens replaced the IP address signatures with their own; editing while logged out has been an issue for them in the past per their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't read carefully enough above. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •     CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - This really is pretty duck, but since it involves arbcom, getting CU confirmation seems like a good plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Unlikely. Different geolocations and IP ranges, same common user agent. This is coming from a purely technical standpoint, though.   No comment with respect to IP address(es). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's not what I expected, but it is indeed why I asked the question. There may well be other issues with SethRuebens, but I'm going to narrowly and specifically address the question of socking and whether they've violated the arbcom-imposed conditions under which they were unblocked.
There's no question the IPs are SethRuebens. If there were any doubts, Special:Diff/1031616178 certainly eliminates them. On the other hand, it also makes it clear that there's no attempt at deception there. In any other case, it would merit no more than a {{uw-login}} warning, and maybe not even that. And since the IPs only edited the talk page, no violation of the arbcom conditions.
As for BillsonBobletian, that's a much harder question. The fact that the text they added to Britannia (TV series) matches almost word-for-word a previous edit by SethRuebens is suspicious, but only on the surface. This was a edit request. Somebody granted the request. Of course they're going to use the same words. It's certainly suspicious that a brand new account would pop up to do this, but this is the kind of controversy which catches the imagination of the public, so this could just be a fan who follows the show. The common language by BillsonBobletian and SethRubin talking about BGGlobal and "tens, if not hundreds of thousands" certainly sets off alarm bells as well. My guess is that BillsonBobletian is indeed SethRuebens, but in the face of CU's "unlikely" finding, that's not enough for me to decide this must be socking. I also note that on the one mainspace edit made by BillsonBobletian, they used the visual editor, which doesn't match the SethRuebens style. Closing with no action taken. If I'm wrong, I imagine future events will provide additional evidence and we can take another look then. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SethRuebens/Archive&oldid=1033122617"