Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beepoppab/Archive

12 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Mostly per and edits to same article(s)  Chzz  ►  21:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

This is ridiculous. It is total coincidence that we edited that same page. Millions of users edit millions of pages everyday. Including the popular Las Vegas page. I am NOT operating multiple accounts, I see no crime here. What exactly is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepoppab (talk • contribs) 22:42, 12 May 2011

There is nothing linking me and Frischee112, other than the same IP however this is a public computer. This is absolute hogwash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepoppab (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
both accounts have edited topics relating to Las Vegas and have similar editing periods. The fact that Frischee112 was only registered after Beepoppab was blocked, but appears to have stopped editing since almost directly after said block was removed raises serious concerns. The edit here is also suspicious to say the least. Endorsed to check for a link between the two accounts, and look for any possible sleepers. Thanks very much, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

per Beepoppab's comment above (since redacted, ) and, please do not worry about whether there is a strong technical link between the two named accounts; regardless of CU results there is a clear case of abuse here, be it solicited editing or genuine sockpuppetry. Nonetheless, left endorsed for a sleeper check, per the fact that Beepoppab states above that he operates multiple accounts. Best wishes, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The two accounts are the same, with no sleepers. The IP appears to be residential, which would argue against a public computer. TN X Man  15:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tnxman, as always.  Chzz  ► 15:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear sock, block the sock, IMO the master should go on a few days for clear evasion & abuse. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed; it's potentially meat-puppetry instead of true socking, but it's still a problem. and I'd specifically like Beepoppab to explain this edit.  Chzz  ► 15:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The sock was indef blocked and the master blocked for a few days. I think we're done? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks done. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)