Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/122.248.102.113/Archive

25 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I'm listing the IP address as the sockmaster because it was the first used, but I strongly suspect that another account exists that is the "true" master. I don't have great evidence of which account is the master, which is why I'm requesting CheckUser. There is compelling evidence that both the IP and user listed are socks, though.
 * The IP address made its first contribution in >1.5 years by removing my Delete comment from a deletion discussion and replacing it with a Keep. Diff:
 * The username was created hours later and did nothing other than sign the comment. Diff:
 * It's unlikely that someone who has never contributed before would join a deletion discussion, but not extraordinarily so. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the new user whose first action was in a deletion discussion would come back 3 hours later, make an account, and think to sign the post.
 * Discounting the 1.5+ year old edit on an IP, which is likely from an unrelated person, this IP and account have ONLY been used in this deletion discussion.
 * The edits are problematic, as they interfere with a deletion discussion.

I'm requesting that CheckUser is used on IP 122.248.102.113 to uncover the sockmaster. The IP is not a proxy as best as I can tell, so this has a high chance of successfully finding the master. ~ RobTalk 05:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I believe both these accounts are socks and am not 100% sure on who the sockmaster is. Their behavior is very much that of a sock, but I could not find enough behavioral evidence to convincingly tie them to a specific account. I'm not claiming that making an account and signing an old post was abusive. The abusive nature of the edits is the removal of a comment from a deletion discussion and trying to make it appear as if more people support keeping this article than actually do in the discussion. Without a CU, the behavioral evidence probably isn't compelling enough because I don't believe you can take action against a sock without tying it to a potential sockmaster, however sock-like the behavior may be. This can probably be closed. ~ RobTalk 00:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

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

 * From what I can see there is no abuse policy here. There is nothing prohibiting an IP from making a comment, then creating an account to come back and sign that comment (as long as they're not representing themselves as separate individuals). Even if there was something nefarious at play here, policy prohibits linking accounts to IPs except in rare circumstances.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the filer that this should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)