Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/88Forever/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Possible socking at Meg Griffin both are highly interested in changing her name to "Megatron" with a few hours of each other. Both used mobile devices to make their edits. I would ask for a duck block, but I am unfamiliar with the chances of 2 distinct, perhaps well-meaning, users creating accounts and doing the exact same edit within 13 hours, so am requesting the CU. The 13 hours does look like someone who went to bed, then woke up in the morning to check their handiwork, discovered it had been reverted, and then created account#2. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  22:01, 15 August 2017 (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

 * - Pretty much.  and, created on the same day, as well as mobile web edits.  QEDK  ( 愛 ) 14:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd actually suggest holding off on this. The episode was on TV again recently, and it is quite possible that two viewers independently decided to add the "Megatron" phrase, especially since it contradicts what is in the article. There's a rather extensive discussion on the talk page about whether or not that should be included back from when the episode initially aired.  Certainly someone who isn't immediately familiar with Wikipedia norms (which covers just about all new users) would not really think further, and would simply consider themselves to be the "lucky ones" who got to add new information to the article.  There is an edit note that says "please see discussion" but doesn't actually link to the discussion that should be reviewed, and new editors could easily miss the edit notice in either VE or source.  Risker (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - Hmm yeah, as Risker said "The episode was on TV again recently" is pretty much my move to reconsider.  QEDK  ( 愛  •  海 ) 17:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - I'm going to have to agree with Risker on this one. As someone decently established also noted it should be changed the same way, I think we are jumping the gun here, as this is not a DUCK. It's been 4 days since they edited, if they continue to edit and present more behavioral similarity, I'd be happy to take another look. I'm just not comfortable getting someones details based on a same diff that is not part of an established pattern of a sockmaster. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Risker's comment led me to re-evaluate and the lack of absolute behavioural evidence led me to support a CU, as requested by the filer. Either way, I think you're right in this case and I think a hold/move to close is in order. -- QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 18:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing as inconclusive.  QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 18:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)