Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angelone7749/Archive

22 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I consider it highly unlikely that three separate people, all with limited Wikipedia edit histories, coincidentally showed up at the same talk page (for article about a fairly obscure university) to agree with each other the way these three have agreed at Talk:California Miramar University (regarding the notion that a particular website is a reliable source because it is linked from a California state agency website). Requesting checkuser because there is insufficient behavioral history to be a basis for analysis. Diffs:
 * Angelone7749:, ,
 * Seetrue:
 * Dhollings: Orlady (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2012 (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

 * Angelone7749 and Seetrue geolocate to the same place, but other than that they are technically ❌. Dhollings has been around since 2005 and has not been checked. WilliamH (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Dhollings registered in 2005, but the diff above was the first (and only) activity from that account since 2008. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * has since edited. He is definitely ❌. Tiptoety  talk 07:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked Seetrue and Angelone with behavioral evidence. Keilana | Parlez ici 07:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

05 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I see this user as blocked: Here User:Angelone7749, but with a simple one week block here:. Edits are continuing:. Error or what? E.g, should the userpage be fixed? – S. Rich (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've slept a few times since the last SPI case, so I don't remember it real well. It appears to me that a second account was permanently blocked as a sockpuppet, but this account was blocked only temporarily, with an admonition against using multiple accounts in the future. That's how isolated incidents of sockpuppetry are typically handled. Unless there is evidence that the user is socking again, they aren't violating the rules against multiple accounts. --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The userpage template was erroneous. I removed it. --Orlady (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2013 (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

 * He was blocked as the puppet master for one week, which has expired. We normally indef block the puppets, but block the master for a week or two for first time offenses, so this is inline with expectations.  Normally, if there is a question about a block, you should go to the blocking admin's page, not file a new SPI unless there is new evidence that this user is again abusing multiple accounts.  Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 22:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)