Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aprilfirst1998/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)




 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The morphology of these usernames referencing film or/and editing or/and a month for the account's use plus the interest in A Chronicle of Corpses and its director Andrew Repasky McElhinney seems beyond question socking is afoot. JesseRafe (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Added user Philadelphian Art and Theater Historian, for same edits as above. Requested CU because I thought that would block creation of new accounts. This socking seems so flagrant, surprised there's no blocks yet even if they make a new account at will. JesseRafe (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2021 (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

 * Taking this out of the CU queue and leaving it to the clerks (not officially declining, but I think CU would be a waste of time.) They're obviously related, but also seem pretty unlikely to be the same person given how close the edits are to one another. I'll let a clerk/patrolling admin decide if there a policy violation here. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @TonyBallioni could you expand on why you think these are unlikely to be the same person? They sure look that way to me.  I've already semi-protected Andrew Repasky McElhinney and A Chronicle of Corpses as the two most common targets, but I'll hold off on any actual blocks until I hear back from you.  The only question left in my mind is whether to block them all as socks or just plain UPE. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * look at the history of one of the articles in question. You have accounts editing within minutes of each other. That's usually a sign of different people working together or interested in the same topic. There's no reason for one person to change accounts within 5 minutes on the same article. That's intuitive, but I can also say that its a pattern that is born out by CU. Usually when you see this it'd be a question of whether or not it violates MEAT. My comment above wasn't against blocking. I'm just not going to CU them when I suspect the results are going to be unlikely or possible. Neither of which would be much help to the SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I'm going to leave this for another clerk with a fresh set of eyes. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling here is that this is more like "people who know each other with a shared interest" or perhaps "misguided editathon" - while these people may well know each other, I don't think their actions merit a block. Closing without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)