Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Batman194/Archive

27 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

plausibly evading scrutiny by opening a new account and pretending editor is retired. Widefox ; talk 12:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Two unlinked accounts, first one used and retired then second one used (no overlaps), both claim to be retired (2nd one isn't retired)
 * Editor claims no knowledge, but evidence is 100%:
 * Account creation date vs last edit date
 * User:Sherlock502 created 2014-02-02 (2nd edit) not retired
 * User:Batman194 last edit 2014-01-23
 * edit behaviour
 * same unique (incorrect) wording on Smart
 * User:Batman194
 * User:Sherlock502 (less so )
 * same unique edit summary text on different articles:
 * User:Batman194 "Removing "-agonist" roles. Please see WP:FILMCAST"
 * User:Sherlock502 "Removing "-agonist" roles. Please see WP:FILMCAST"
 * account names: fictional character with 3 numbers
 * approx 50 overlapping acticles:
 * Keke Palmer 33 edits, 20 edits
 * The Blacklist (TV series) 7, 2 edits
 * Evading sanctions issue:
 * New account to avoid sanctions on old one (same issues on both accounts)
 * New account to avoid sanctions on old one (same issues on both accounts)


 * (In reply to below by User:King of Hearts - does my reply mean it can be reopened? Widefox ; talk 20:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC))
 * CLEANSTART has not been followed: " and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." Editing pattern has not changed, Sock puppetry. Also, the new account is not retired as claimed. Widefox ; talk 08:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify...I'm not claiming evading sanctions, but evading scrutiny "Misusing a clean start by switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of this policy" (which may have lead to sanctions). Substantial disruption of old account  and disruption continued (same articles, edit summaries). My point is, CLEANSTART doesn't allow this pattern, and cleanstart links to sock, hence listing here. Is the wrong forum (why does cleanstart link back to socking?), or should I just drop it?   Widefox ; talk 21:20, 28 May 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

 * The first one last edited on January 23, while the second one began editing on February 2, so there is no overlap in edits. Users are allowed to have a clean start and even deny any connection to the old account when asked, as long as they cease editing using the old account. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Widefox: You claim that the user is using a new account to evade sanctions. However, I am unable to find any sanctions placed against the old account. Also, there is no policy against continuing to edit after declaring retirement (it would only be a problem if the first account started editing again). -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. In any case, there isn't a valid reason to block here, but if Sherlock502 does anything that Batman194 has been warned about, they can be blocked for longer periods. Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)