Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BriCastellini/Archive

03 June 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

created Brains (web series). When that page was tagged for speedy deletion, Bri contested the deletion. When I replied to that contested deletion, the other user and IPs arrived to chime in on the retention of the article, all with arguments along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. All accounts save one IP are SPAs. The sole exception is the last IP, which made one other contribution, in 2007. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:17, 3 June 2016 (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 two accounts are ❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin action needed - I actually thought this was DUCKy enough to call without a CU. Here's a timeline:
 * 19:56, 2 June 2016: BriCastellini created
 * 20:26, 2 June 2016: Brains (web series) created by BriCastellini
 * 21:17, 2 June 2016: A7'd by OnionRing
 * 21:19, 2 June 2016: A7 contested by BriCastellini
 * 21:43, 2 June 2016: A7 contested by 2601:1C2:D00:4A5E:F02D:42A6:9F38:E011
 * 22:29, 2 June 2016: A7 contested by 151.225.142.245
 * 23:10, 2 June 2016: Cjmarkham411 created
 * 23:16, 2 June 2016: A7 contested by Cjmarkham411
 * 23:34, 2 June 2016: A7 contested by 67.86.241.58
 * 23:49, 2 June 2016: A7 contested by 64.59.249.199
 * I'd also note that of all the suspected puppets, all but 2601:1C2:D00:4A5E:F02D:42A6:9F38:E011 failed to sign their comments, and after WikiDan61 explained what an A7 was more clearly, all but Cjmarkham411 mentioned how large Wikipedia was as a reason to keep or directly mentioned Wikipedia's purpose. Thus, . I'm therefore recommending indefinite blocks for all accounts and one-week blocks for all IPs. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to block IPs that haven't been active for 4 or 5 days. Those IPs have been active for a short time, and then became inactive. We never block IPs in such cases, because they are probably dynamic and were assigned to another user in the meantime. We only block IPs if they are currently active or if it's obvious that the IP is being used by the same person for a loner period of time. But even then we start with shorter blocks (2-3 days at most, not a week, see: WP:IPBLENGTH). I will indeff the sock (Cjmarkham411) and issue a warning to the master, I think that is enough. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)