Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobsimon232422/Archive

06 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All three users were created on 12 February 2014 within a short span of time. All three are SPAs whose sole contributions were creating and editing the WP:SPAM article Chirag Kulkarni currently being reviewed in AfD. See... Articles for deletion/Chirag Kulkarni. Ad Orientem (talk) 07:21, 6 March 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
Actually, the master account was created on February 6 but didn't start editing until February 12. It's not clear to me if these are socks or meat puppets, although naming your account Jacksock isn't a great idea. The one I had the least to go on was Soupsong, who made only one edit, but I blocked them anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The overlap with the master is on Chirag Kulkarni, and the socks overlap with each other on Lisa Song Sutton and Cameron Kashani (see, ). There is clear promotional intent in these article creations. Based on the unusual age of Batmanandrobin23, I'm requesting CU to check against the master and for additional socks. GABgab 15:45, 21 July 2017 (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

 * - Thanks very much, GABgab 15:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat that the two suspects are the same, but they're both ❌ to the master. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing; they're probably colleagues of some sort. GABgab 00:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just about to file this myself. It's obvious that they are professional undisclosed editors (I'll drop you an email to explain my reasoning) and given they are acting as socks, shouldn't they be treated as them? SmartSE (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I generally try to give the benefit of the doubt, but I wouldn't object if you see fit to block them. Thanks, GABgab 22:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. I highly doubt that we would ever see them edit again, but given the professionalism of some edits, it's highly likely that these aren't their first accounts either which pushes me to block. Good to close now. SmartSE (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)