Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Æðð/Archive

12 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

After the IP was blocked for edit-warring, Æðð made the same edits as the IP. Both editors began editing about the same time (May 1 & 2, 2012). TFD (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

logged in and resumed the revert war where the 68.x.x.x IP left off. Both the IP and the sock reference the "15th amendment" in their edit summaries. Both the IP and the sock like to replace article text describing the "middle class" or "working class" with the phrase "lower income earners" instead: (ex. from IP), (ex. from sock). The editor doesn't seem to be making an effort to conceal his socking; looks like simple unabashed disruption. Æðð is probably one of many throw-away accounts with just a couple edits; the static IP has the more significant edit history. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He's doing it again. Some admin or something really needs to take a note of this! -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  20:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a notice at WP:SPI that there is a backlog. TFD (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: Looking at the "voting rights" article does not show the two editors making the "same edits" which is rather a problem if one wishes to asset that such was the case. Nor does the editor look "disruptive" from here. since the edits are not the same. Meanwhile, I rather suspect most folks who refer to the 15th Amendment call it that - pretty weak case here. The article overlap is a total of one article, the IP has edited over 25 articles, or a whopping overlap of 4%. The named editor has edited on a whopping total of 3 articles - only one of which overlaps with the IP. The "evidence" is thin indeed at this point - they might be a sock, but not enough to make a case here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What the Hell? That is absolutely preposterous. The IP was blocked for edit warring on the Modern liberalism in the United States article on May 12 at 4:18 est. The editor called Æðð started editing 30 minutes later on the same article, after not editing for 10 days on an account that had only one other edit. The edits are all the same, and the summaries match(see: 15th Amendment),(it's called the "15th Amendment", but you Marxists never read the Constitution anyway). I honestly don't know if you are looking at the same evidence. There should be a CU run here and both accounts blocked, the registered one indeffed. Dave Dial (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The edits are clearly not the same. To make a strong accusation, the edits should be a lot closer in nature than they are.  And I would note that "close, but no cigar" applies, as far too many accusations thin on evidence have been made in the past here.   A few inches more rope might catch a sock, but there is not really enough at this point. Collect (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Collect, the evidence clearly shows the IP and to be the same editor; a correlation made even stronger by the fact that it becomes obvious after so few edits (only 6!) by the Æðð account.  The editor did indeed make the "same edits" as an IP and as Æðð on the Modern liberalism in the United States article.  As the IP, he revert-warred to keep these edits in the article, and as Æðð, he continued that revert war (see here) just minutes after his IP was blocked for 3RR violation.  No other editor is arguing his position there.  No other editor references the 15th amendment in their edit summaries.  As noted above, this editor began editing with this IP and as Æðð at the beginning of this month, almost on the very same day, and has promoted the "lower income earners" catch-phrase as both an IP and while logged in.  He has also created ==Controversy== subsections in BLPs of political figures (lefties, of course) as both an IP and while logged in. All these identical traits, apparent after only 6 logged-in edits.  Dr. Evil couldn't have created a more perfect clone -- and I say this as a staunch opponent of casting accusations based on "thin evidence".  This duck has long since paddled, waddled and quacked, and it is now time to move on to deciding whether or not to roast it.


 * I see that TNXMan has left notifications on the talk pages of both his IP and his Æðð account, requesting that he comment here. Perhaps he will; I'd like to request that this SPI remain open for a reasonable enough time to allow him to do so. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can also safely say that this IP is also the same guy...as he makes the same edits as well.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  14:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I think Xenophrenic summed the evidence up well at the beginning. Without running a check, I would say the account and the IP are the same. They need to either edit logged in or out, not both. I'm going to mark this for close for now, but further disruption will result in a block. TN X Man 14:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)