Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Launebee

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

13 September 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Evidence: User:Launebee twice removed some tags from the article

Panthéon-Assas University
. Another user, User:‪XIIIfromTOKYO‬, twice restored them. Then immediately a series of four IPs did the identical removals that Launebee had been doing, while the other user reverted the IPs and mocked them as socks. I am requesting a Checkuser because I think it is possible that this was a joe job against Launebee - not only because it is way, way too obvious, but because the IPs geolocate to Europe and the other user appears (despite their name) to be European.

The situation is actually seen most clearly at Panthéon-Assas University: Revision history but here are the diffs:

Thanks for checking. (And yes, the edit warring is being dealt with elsewhere.) MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about not connecting user accounts with IP addresses: Yes, I know you can't connect an account to a unique IP that is theirs. But I thought it might be possible to check and see if one or the other user I have named here is socking, without specifying which IP (out of four IPs from two completely different ranges) actually connects to the user. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 14 September 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

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  •  Clerk declined - For privacy reasons accounts and IP addresses won't be publicly connected. Sro23 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All IPs have been inactive for over a month. Closing. ~ Rob13Talk 15:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Some of the users that defend the articles University of Paris and Sorbonne University current versions seem to be either anonymous IPs or recently created accounts that support one another’s views in the discussion thread, creating a illusion of support. Their verbatim, including English mistakes (“reborn” instead of “rebirth” and so on), are also similar.

I have recently seen that the user Launabee was banned from making edits on French academic institutionsUser_talk:Launebee#Topic_ban. Since then, the following users were created, perhaps in a way of evading his sanction: 


Launebee (Last edit: 23/10/17) 
Parberg (First edit: 7/11/17. Last edit: 21/11/17
) JeanBirkin (First edit: 18/12/17. Last edit: 23/12/17) SummertimeinCrocodilopolis (First edit: 27/12/17. Last edit: 12/01/17).



As one can see, the users were created exclusively to support a similar POV regarding the University of Paris and Sorbonne University. The edits of all the above mentioned users are in identical articles, all concerning Parisian universities, with a similar agenda. Moreover, the date of the creation of their accounts is suspicious. On top of that, all the users seem to have considerable knowledge regarding wikipedia already from their first contribution.



I don't want to make false accusations here, I would be deeply sorry to make a mistake, but perhaps a more experienced user could have a look on what is going on in these pages. SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2018 (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

28 August 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

The account Delfield is clearly the latest episode in the string of sockpuppet accounts of Launabee. Launabee has been banned from editing articles on French academic institutions (. Delfield has been making edits to the English language Sciences Po article.

Evidence for sockpuppet-account:

Delfield has been following the content and language pattern of Launabee in a highly conspicuous way. Launabee was recognisable by continuously adding laudatory content about the law faculty of University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne. At the same time Launabee deleted positive content about Sciences Po and added derogatory content, specifically about the Sciences Po law school. While doing so, Launabee demonstrated a distinctly French-sounding English grammar and made mistakes with his wording.


Delfield fits into the exact language and content style of Launabee. Delfield even used some of the identical phrases as Launabee. The following are just a few examples of many:

Delfield writes: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sciences_Po&diff=974153935&oldid=966898648)

"2008, partly as an answer to the announcement of the creation of a "law school" in this new meaning in Sciences Po, University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas, created a "law college" (undergraduate level) and then a "law school" (graduate level) on top of its faculty of law to attract top students in France (see the disambiguation page, second meaning). It was widely reported in the media as the creation of a "way of excellence in law" for "brilliant students"."


Launabee wrote: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_school,_college_of_law_or_academy_of_law_in_France&diff=974366825&oldid=706723576)

"Panthéon-Assas University being the top faculty of law in France, medias called even more this law college and school "way of excellence""

Both use the same citations. The same language.

If you compare the editing history of both accounts, the similarity is striking:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Launebee&offset=20171002173105&limit=500&target=Launebee) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Delfield&offset=&limit=500&target=Delfield)

If more evidence is needed, I can easily give more examples. I take the nature of these investigations seriously. This is not a lighthearted accusation.

MePhisto (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

XIIIfromTOKYO has provided additional evidence for the connection between Launabee and Delfield (can be found on this page). I kindly request that this evidence will be considered for the SPI. At this point I believe that the evidence speaks for itself.

MePhisto (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rational behind the addition of Ransouk to the list is explained below[8]. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Delfield

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

Hello,

I improved the article created by other users, I used their sources and those of other articles. I also copy pasted some useful information from an article to another. It obviously does not mean I am the same user than the other contributors whose work I use.

MePhisto is a one-purpose account oriented on making advertisement on Science Po with other accounts (it is why I ended up making much edits on that page and asked for a protection https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive&diff=prev&oldid=920447245 ). I tried to talk to him on content in talk page and find a consensus, but he never once talked about content but only resorted to a "you have the same opinion than an other account, and are not a native-speaker either, so you are him and you should be banned" argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sciences_Po .

--Delfield (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question MePhisto talk about a "CU procedure": what does it mean? --Delfield (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MePhisto and XIIIfromTokyo are only "proving" that I edited some pages another user edited in the past. They are just not happy because they wanted to make the Sciences Po article an advertisement and not discuss about content (for example [9] [10]) so they are artificially creating this discussion. --Delfield (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XIIIfromTOKYO

It really looks like the same user. The same behaviour pattern was displayed on FR.wiki by Droas82 way back in late 2015/early 2016[11]. It took us 6 months to solve the Droas82 issue there. This user has been plaguing these articles since then on EN.wiki. Without a strong stance, you will have to deal with him/her for a long time. Good luck. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this edit from this user, about some unspecified "behaviour pattern" from an another user, is their second edit in 2020. It is written in their talk page: "you are hereby topic-banned from making direct edits to articles on French academic institutions, due to your lack of facility with the English language and with the policies of English Wikipedia. Furthermore, you are cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants. Any further comments of this type on your part may lead to an immediate block." Would this user be MePhisto? --Delfield (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1000+ edits this year so far, and 100'000+ total edits[12]. Happy ? I don't think starting a discussion like you do by trying to know who has the largest editcount is very mature.
Yes, back in 2016 I tried to warn EN.Wiki about Droas82/Launebee crosswiki massive use of sockpuppets. Launebee managed to get me topic-ban to silence me, and came back with a brand new army of sockpuppets. And then Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee was openned, and it was proven that I was right all along. So, yea, maybe I should ask for the topic-ban to be lifted, but I don't feel like dealing with admins thinking that my "lack of facility with the English language" can cover their xenophobic behaviours.
The "behaviour pattern" has already been introduced by MePhisto. So, no, it's not "unspecified". XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do your problems with the administrators have to do with me? I mentioned your text on the noticeboard because I do not see what I can answer to that. --Delfield (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Answered at AN. Now back to the real topic.
After only 131 edits as of today, you have shown that you already have a deep knowledge of Wikipedia ([message at the AN), and of a 5 years dispute (enough to provide very fast some years old diffs). But of course you know nothing about and are not connected to Launebee/Droas82 . XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You message is not clear. I found where one can ask Wikipedia if there is a problem and I provided the "diffs" available on your talk page for more clarity. Besides, could you be a bit more gentle please? I am not responsible for your problems with Wikipedia. --Delfield (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have attacked me on my number of edits, then on my grammar. Being "a bit more gentle". Sure, why not ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Can an non-involved English native speaker confirm me that "bizarrely", although correct in English, is still very uncommon. It's a word that many French speakers use because of its similarity with "bizarrement" (which is very common). Launebee was French, and spotting this kind of similarity could help. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'bizarrely' is probably not very common, but I certainly use it myself, and hear it often enough to say that it's in general usage. (Monoglot UKian here.) ghytred talk 16:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, non-conclusive so far. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-involved polyglot UKian here) "Bizarrely" is everyday British English. See e.g. this search in The Guardian and this search which relates to a post-punk band. I expect I could easily find several dozen or hundred more examples. I doubt whether use of the word is evidence for or against or proves anything (except, possibly, the ability to spell). Narky Blert (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. As @MePhisto: put it "Launabee has used an incorrect, French-style English-grammar and wording. The edits of Delfield fit into this pattern"[13]. I have the same opinion, so I'm trying to pinpoint some relevant and indisputable exemples. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong bias against Science Po and in favor of Assas

These two edits show best that, as Launebee, Delfield has a very strong bias :

  1. Against Sciences Po
  2. In favor of
    University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas
    , AKA Assas
  • The article
    University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne law school was turned into a disambiguation page. Delfield commented the edit as "There was a consensus on this page"[14]
    .
No consensus is to be found, because the talk page hasn't been used for years. Delfield simply brought the article back to Launebee's version.
University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne
's law school. Sorbonne is never used by Assas and/or its law school, so their inclusions can't really be justified.
So Delfield turned an article dedicated to an other rival university to a disambiguation page promoting Assas.
  • Controversies
Why is it acceptable to add 10,461‎ bytes of so-called controversies at the Science Po article (actually just a feud with Assas), but 4,869 bytes are "too long" and need to be POV-forked into a new article ? And why the feud between Science Po and Assas is only worth mentionning at the Science Po article ?
Neutrality ? No. Clearly, the same kind of material is treated very differently by Delfield depending on the college. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fast learning curve

As of today, 142 edits since the 20th of September 2019.

  • 4th edit, 20 September 2019 : First edit on a law college in Paris[15]
  • 8th edit, 20 septembre 2019 : First edit on Science Po, removing a large part of the intro, and already using {{Citation needed}}[16]
  • 23rd edit, 7 October 2019 : First creation of an article, a POV-fork[17]
  • 33rd edit, 9 October 2019 : First request for page protection[18]. The aim was to have the article Sciences Po locked on the version that Delfield wrote.
  • 43rd edit, 10 October 2019 : First message on a Wikiprojet talk page, in order to start a merging process detween two articles[19]
  • 55th edit, 10 October 2019 : First article for deletion nomination[20] : Sciences Po Law School. Large parts of the article were subsequently removed by Delfield[21][22] in order to thin the article, and ease the deletion process.
  • 86th edit, 20 August 2020 : First disambiguation page[23], in order to promote Assas.
  • 113rd edit, 5th Septembre 2020 : Sock Puppet investigation against Delfield begins[24]

5h September 2020, I let a message on the sockpuppet investigation. Delfield starts red herring tactics. I'm the main target, and Delfield starts to dig 5 years olds edits.


  • 121st edit, 11 September 2020 : First message at the Administrators' noticeboard [25], targeting my supposedly low number of edit and/or lack of fluency in English.
  • 125th edit, 12 September 2020 : Delfield a sockpuppet investigations against MePhisto[26]
  • 131st edit, 13 Septembre 2020 : Delfield opens a ANI against me[27]

As one can see, it's either the learning curve of a genious, or simply a new attempt of Launebee. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same time zone and contribution schedule

Launebee and Delfield clearly contribute from the same time zone (see the "punchcard" tab). Their schedule spreads also fit in the same description : roughly 8am til midnight, 7 days a week. Delfield's low number of edits doesn't allow to go too much further, but for both of them friday & saturday afternoons are not busy hours.

Something to keep in mind for the next SPIs. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ransouk added to the SPI

After a discussion with MePhisto, the user Ransouk was added to the list of suspected sockpuppet.

It ticks a lot of boxes :

  • All edits are about the University of Paris II Assas
  • It lies about what the references in French actually say[28]
  • "top university in France" style of writting[29]
  • "Heir of the faculty of law" style of writting[30].

Some elements seem odd :

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: This SPI was opened by MePhisto, who is also the subject of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MePhisto, which was opened by Delfield, the subject of this investigation. Sigh. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Open for a month and obviously not going anywhere, so closing with no action taken. If anybody has some new evidence and can present it in a clear and concise way so it's easy to evaluate, file a new report. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

I'm writing this SPI request with a

WP:LEGITSOCK for privacy reasons, the material relates in part to a highly controversial article with a context of legal threats: Juan Branco
.

Already suspected in 2020 with detailed evidence

- Delfield was already suspected of being one - of many - Launebee sockpuppets by 2 other editors in 2020,[31] who gave many details in their SPI: editing the same few articles in the same way - "strong bias against Science Po and in favor of the University of Paris"; note: Juan Branco studied at Sciences Po -, "French sounding grammar" and same mistakes, "fast learning curve", "same time zone and posting schedule", etc. [32]
- Along with Ransouk, which was created in June 2018 and only started contributing a year later, in May 2019.
- One of the two requesters explicitly said: "The same behaviour pattern was displayed on FR.wiki by Droas82 way back in late 2015/early 2016[33]. It took us 6 months to solve Droas82's issue there. This user has been plaguing these articles since then on EN.wiki. Without a strong stance, you will have to deal with him/her for a long time".

The SPI was not carried out because the clerk asked for new evidence, so here I am:

New evidence

- Ebtpmus - SPA - and Delfield - almost SPA - were both created in a span of 3 months in 2019 (June - September). The former only started contributing two years later - same pattern as Ransouk.
- Delfield first edited Juan Branco in July 2021 [34] and Ebtpmus 5 months later, in November 2021 - his first edit.[35]
- Ebtpmus was reported for vandalism on the fr wiki in June 2022 for edit-warring to try to make the wording on Juan Branco controversies more negative.[36]
- Same posting schedule over the last 8 months for Ebtpmus, Delfield and Ransouk: November-December 2022, March-April 2023, and June-July 2023. The only 3 topics they edited during this period are: University of Paris, Sciences Po, and Juan Branco (= an alumnus of Sciences Po).
- Specifically, Delfield and Ebptmus both edited Juan Branco on December 3 and 4, then took a break, and - except for one edit on Sciences Po - both returned to wp in July 2023: Ebtpmus commented on Juan Branco's talk page on the 4th [37] and the morning of the 12th [38], and then, as his proposal was ignored, Delfield replied to him on the evening of the 12th and applied the change he asked for. [39]... always there when needed !
- I add D.Lazard because of similar usernames, which makes me think Delfield might be his privacy sock because of the legal threat he received - which this answer also suggests: [40] - but if it is this, then these edits to vote on the RFC Delfield opened,[41] and this one in an edit war to restore Delfield's version [42] - among others - would be completely WP:ILLEGIT.
- And last piece of the puzzle: I found out that D.Lazard studied and worked for the... University of Paris.[43] Would he have tried to embellish the articles of the university he worked for - just as he seems to have done with his own article [44] - while adding controversies to those of competitors like Sciences Po [45] (or alumni like Juan Branco) with an army of sock/meatpuppets in order to cover up his veteran account and circumvent the rules on
WP:COI
?

I don't want to make false accusations here, I would be deeply sorry to make a mistake, but perhaps a veteran user could have a look on what is going on in these pages. JourneyBard (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I believe that it suffices to look on my edit history to be convinced that I am not a sockpuppet and that I do not use socks, even if this could avoid me to be harassed (see Talk:Juan Branco#Threats).

On the other hand, user:JourneyBard is certainly an sockpuppet of user:Imagritte, recently blocked by NinjaRobotPirate‎ (SPA created soon after the block of Imagritte, same lengthy and aggressive style for discussing). See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Brancojuan. D.Lazard (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Launebee/Archive&oldid=1167647047"