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

• Deboleena.ghy (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.

Both users have very similar editing histories which are short and on Michael Jackson articles. They are both supporting each other at the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's Boys (2nd nomination) in trying to delete the article. Neither has ever participated in AFD before. It's likely they are the same individual trying to influence the vote at the AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Checkuser note: These accounts were checked already as a part of an ANI report in July 2019. The checkuser's finding was: They are all different people, including GiuliaZB and Partytemple. None are using proxies and they are spread out through the world. No signs of socking from any of them from a cu perspective. It may be that they belong to a forum but that is just a guess. Mz7 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to what 4meter4 says above, I note that both of these accounts were created about 5 weeks before their first edits, and their time cards show a close correlation in what times and days of the week they mainly edit. The fact that they both immediately found their way to unusual places like talk pages and AfD is also suspicious. What's not in common between them is that all of Deboleena's edits are tagged as being on mobile, and none of Truth's are (which I assume means a CU would just tell us that they're on different devices and different IPs, so no point in even looking at that).

My guess is possible socks, but more likely canvassed meat from some other forum; the fact that at least one of them refers to "moderators" instead of "admins" supports the later theory. I'm also having a hard time understanding why somebody would warehouse sleeper accounts just for the purpose of deleting a MJ article. I'm very close to blocking them, but I'll hold off for another set of eyes to confirm my suspicions. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, based on the previous CU result. CU can see mobile vs. desktop and compare devices, as well as a number of other technical metrics, and if there's a question of the findings not being clear the CU will say so ("inconclusive" usually) but if a CU states a conclusion like "they're all different people" I would take that as authoritative. The "mobile edit" tags don't necessarily indicate device usage either, they indicate which version of the editor is in use - you can use the mobile editor from a desktop computer, and you can use the regular editor from a smartphone (I do, I hate the mobile editor). I'm also, frankly, wary of the filer, who seems to be filing reports today based on nothing more than redlinked accounts editing AFDs in common. They very well could be meatpuppets, though, so Roy I'll leave this in your capable hands. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually edit-conflicted with Mz7 on my comment above. Given what Mz7 said, though, I'd say I'm glad I didn't pull the trigger on the block :-) I'm still mystified by some of this, but given the CU finding, I'm going to close this with no action taken and I guess we can always take another look if more evidence of socking appears in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mameoppenheim (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Atiori Zronkri (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 · SPI Tools

On June 30, 2022, Mameoppenheim created Draft:Megan Euker (can temporarily be found at User:BilledMammal/Megan Euker). They then abandoned the draft and instead moved to their sandbox, where they created Draft:Megan Elizabeth Euker.

This article was rejected on November 20, then again on November 27, and for a third time on December 3. On January 24, they gave up on this draft and nominated it for deletion under G7. Eight hours after the draft was deleted a new user, Atiori Zronkri, started working on a version of this article in their sandbox. A day afterwards, they pasted that content into Mameoppenheim's initial draft.

I don't know how similar to Mameoppenheim's final draft this content was, but my assumption is that there are at least some similarities.

Two minutes after they pasted the content, and four minutes after they submitted the draft for AfC review, TruthGuardians accepted the submission.

On that day there were at least 210 articles submitted and this was the only one that TruthGuardians reviewed; across all days TruthGuardians has reviewed less than a dozen articles.

One month after the article was created a user called Megan Euker uploaded an image of Megan Euker to commons; 11 minutes after they did so Atiori Zronkri added the image to the article.

My belief is that Atiori Zronkri is a sockpuppet of Mameoppenheim, and Mameoppenheim has a conflict of interest, possibly a paid conflict of interest, in relation to Megan Euker. The connection with TruthGuardians is less clear, but two minutes is not sufficient time to review the draft, and the chance of them accidentally stumbling across it at Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago so soon after it was submitted is extremely low.

Because of this I believe that TruthGuardians is also involved, as a meatpuppet. For full context I have believed this about TruthGuardians previously, in relation to editing about Micheal Jackson; see this report. At the time there was no evidence found of sockpuppetry, but meatpuppetry was not investigated. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Megan Euker is registered on commons; I don't think you'll be able to check that account. BilledMammal (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: Considering the possible connection to a larger UPE ring, this discussion on Liz's talk page might be useful; I believed that Myna50 might also be involved in such a ring, along with several other editors who I have not had time to investigate, some of whom you have caught at that report.

Regarding TruthGuardians, my belief was that they might be part of such a ring with the focus of their account being Michael Jackson but also providing some support to other aspects of the operation such as through AfC accepts.

This is reinforced by my previous review of them and other Michael Jackson-focused editors where I found that many of them had similar behavior patterns, including identical edits, like they were following a script to build up the respectability of an account before using it for UPE activities. There was also a pattern of them coming back from activity to support each other in discussions; at the time I assumed it was off-wiki canvassing at a fan site but when making the comment on Liz's talk page I started to believe it might be a UPE group.

It could be a case of Hanlon's razor as DatGuy says, but the speed at which they found the AfC request makes me believe that they were directed to it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• CheckUser requested - please compare Mameoppenheim, Atiori Zronkri, and Megan Euker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to each other. Regarding TruthGuardians, I feel they're unrelated and this is more a case of Hanlon's razor. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @DatGuy there is no such account as Megan Euker. Could you clarify what you intended? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake, missed out they weren't registered locally. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• TruthGuardians, Mameoppenheim, and Atiori Zronkri all appear to be  Unrelated to each other from the CU data I can see. However, there are some indications that there might be proxies in use, so  Inconclusive might apply as well. That being said, I agree that the behavior of the three accounts looks fishy; I suggest ignoring the CU results and dealing with this on the behavioral evidence. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a quick note, I don't think TruthGuardians is a sock or meatpuppet but I've removed their AfC rights because of this and other bad accepts/declines, see [1]. The other two editors are more interesting. Still pondering. Spicy (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• After some digging, I've blocked Atiori Zronkri at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariah200. Spicy (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've warned Mameoppenheim for paid editing. Not convinced TruthGuardians is a meatpuppet. I don't think there is anything more to do here, so closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]