Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BestDayEverFish/Archive

09 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

In late October, new user BestDayEverFish made a series of unsourced edits to a variety of pages relating primarily to college football. One characteristic edit was to identify a particular stadium or venue as the “largest” or the “smallest” in a conference – sometimes describing not the current state of affairs but at some point in the future. These claims (which were not on their face implausible) were uniformly unsourced. Three samples of such edits: Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3

Other substantive edits (similarly unsourced or forward-looking) related to conference realignments and team placement within conferences. Following a series of template and narrative warnings on his Talk page regarding unsourced edits, OR and crystal ball issues, this editor (without responding to the warnings in any fashion) stopped editing on November 4.

Beginning minutes after the (thus far) final November 4 edit by BestDayEverFish, IP editor 76.190.196.103 began to undertake the same sorts of edits. (These were not the first edits from this IP but the account had not been used extensively in the preceding weeks. Perhaps notably, earlier edits from this IP had garnered a series of warnings about adding unsourced materials.)  Here are three more diffs of the IP’s edits showing the same pattern: Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3

I warned IP editor about adding unsourced and OR material. This resulted in a complaint by the IP editor on my Talk page, including an arguable legal threat.

During the middle of my Talk page exchanges with the IP editor, the account LastOneInLine was created, and shortly thereafter edits from the IP address stopped. As the compare report above should show, four of the first eleven pages edited by new editor LastOneInLine were pages on which I had just reverted unsourced changes by the IP editor. Three of the four had also been edited previously by BestDayEverFish. It is highly unlikely that such a significant overlap, coming from an account created contemporaneously with my exchanges with the IP editor, were merely coincidental.

Notably, these new edits are coming with much less frequency, and appear to be properly sourced. Perhaps the editor has, in fact, turned over a new leaf and intends to contribute constructively and in keeping with WP policies. On the other hand if the new account is a sock, then this is the second time the editor has abandoned an account following criticism. In addition, the editor’s edit history, along with a general unwillingness to discuss the issues, does not inspire confidence. I leave it to the reviewing administrator to decide upon an appropriate remedy. JohnInDC (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The user has effectively confessed to the puppetry, here, but as noted has been adding proper sources and claims to be serious about adhering more closely to WP policies. I ask that the admins take this into account in deciding how to proceed - perhaps blocking the original account only?  Again I leave the issue to the discretion of the more experienced.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I will commit to finding sources for my edits. LastOneInLine (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Call it good faith, but I'm going to let this go for now. Relist if necessary. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)