Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashwak786/Archive

02 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Recently, Ashwak786 was permanently banned for hounding, personal attacks and sockpuppetry; the puppet account was CorrectionRobot1234. The conflict began over the Asad Q. Ahmed, which the user proved to be obsessed with defending (there was a dispute over the article itself as well as the subject's notability). I will try to provide the evidence briefly, but there is a lot of behavioral stuff. This will be a bit diff-heavy.


 * It all started with User:GorgeCustersSabre's attempt to stop someone from creating a fanpage. As can be seen on the article's history, the reverts were fast and furious. No, I'm not expecting the investigators to click on that link and inspect each diff themselves; a quick look at the history of edits itself is enough to set the background for the conflict. User:RookTaker, User:Donner60 and User:Cmr08 also tried to stop Ashwak786 but to no avail. Ashwak then started to troll Gorge's talk page, threatening to stalk Goege and undo every one of his edits.


 * Ashwak did exactly that, reverting Gorge on entirely unrelated articles such as Murder of Michelle MacNiel, Singapore and Frankie Cocozza. He even reverted RookTaker on another unrelated article as well.


 * Then he started up with the CorrectionRobot1234 account, reverting Gorge on Fiji's military, Cmr08 on some Middle Eastern historical figure, User:Dougweller on some monument in Georgia and...freaking AnomieBot. That's right, he reverted AnomieBot. Both accounts were swiftly banned for sockpuppetry.

Alright, we're done with the setup now right? Ok, here's the evidence about the new account. Sorry, I'm not sure how to keep this any shorter.


 * Conrad2178 is now flooding Talk:Asad Q. Ahmed, the talk page where much of the fireworks went off. The same kind of passive aggressive (borderline just plain aggressive) comments have come up, also aimed at anyone questioning the subject's notability. On the article, he is pushing the same flowery language which the original account displayed, really fawning over the subject.

So just after a week of the banning of the puppetmaster and first sock, we now have a single purpose account pushing the same flowery POV about the non-notable subject, the same rudeness, the same obsessive behavior of five or so edits in a row on the talk page before anyone else has even responded. And all of this started after I began a discussion on the talk page (I was previously uninvolved) to seriously discuss the subject's notability, noting on the same day - please think about this carefully, the same exact day - that we had finally gotten the sockpuppets banned and within minutes, this new account was created solely to respond to the topic. It just doesn't add up. I think this is the sockmaster back to try and defend the subject before more serious editors do what has already been hinted at by a number of us - nominate the article for deletion due to lack of notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC) MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2014 (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
I've indeffed Conrad based on duck, although it's possible the user is a meat puppet. I've tagged the latest account and corrected the tags on the other two accounts. , first, the report was not too long. It was well presented. The weakest point was the lack of diffs between the master and Conrad. Second, leave the tagging to clerks and admins, please. A sock (master or puppet) is not confirmed unless a check user has been done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)