Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bumashes/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Single purpose accounts. Only seem to be interested in Nurse practitioner, all only have edits in the Talk:Nurse practitioner given that article is protected. I suspect sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2019

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

Response by bumashes: So, I don’t have any idea what a sock puppet is here on Wiki. Or an accusation of this kind. Not really sure how interested I am in it either. I only recently created my account because I had noticed some very poor evidence and statements regarding nurse practitioners on the Nurse Practitioner Wiki page. I wanted to voice my concerns, and so I did. Apparently, this person, TheGreatWikiLord, has not taken kindly to having his contributions questioned by someone who is knowledgable on the topic of nurse practitioners (I have been an NP for five years now). Not really sure what game he is playing with this accusation, other than trying to draw attention away from his own inaccuracies. This is my only Wiki account, and it will certainly be my last after seeing how shoddily run Wiki actually is in allowing people to lock out changes to a page in an effort to smear a certain profession and group of people. Shame on him and all others participating for this reason. -bumashes-

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * : Looks suspicious, please check for named accounts. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the edits, I expect that these are different people who probably heard about the Nurse practitioner article online somewhere. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with DoRD that this looks much more likely to be different people who found something online, so I don't think CU will turn up much here, and I think the existing semi-protection will likely be the best bet. Closing without action. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)