Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bunnygirl editor/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The above accounts all have a few very unusual things in common: most importantly, they all have an interest in Eddie Hall (racing driver), a very obscure karting driver with very little coverage. His article is currently the subject of an AfD discussion. All the accounts are almost entirely single-use and have only edited this page, Witham (Hall's hometown), Club100 (the pay-to-drive series he competed in) and a couple of music articles. Several are linked by username and are therefore pretty obvious.

The giveaway for me is this message (canvassing for the AfD discussion) from FactFinderGeneral (who appears to be a legitimate editor) to MyanMar2022 in which they say "we collaborated on a few edits in the past and I know you regularly contributed to the Eddie Hall (racing driver) article on your old account". However, there has never been any interaction on-wiki between MyanMar2022 or MyanMar2021 and FactFinderGeneral: in fact, nearly a decade had passed between FactFinderGeneral's last edit to the Hall article before the AfD and the creation of the MyanMar2021 account. It would be impossible for FactFinderGeneral to have collaborated with the other editor or to be aware of an old account without knowing that editor in person, or indeed being that editor. Following this message, MyanMar2022 left a keep !vote at the AfD discussion with the same rationale as FactFinderGeneral. Myanmar2022 made their first edit at 15:29, 27 January 2022 UTC to the Club100 article, 14 minutes after FactFinderGeneral made their final edit on that day to the AfD discussion.

I am requesting CheckUser involvement because I think it is reasonable some of these IPs (and possibly accounts, although I doubt it) are not involved. However, they do geolocate to a similar region in the UK and all fit the pattern described above making the same routine edits to the same set of articles. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 12:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC); copyedited 12:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I understand that this case was declined and I am not requesting that it be taken further, but I would like to note that the issue at hand is that it appears very likely (to me at least) that a user is (was) abusing multiple accounts in a deletion discussion, which is unambiguously a violation of WP:SOCK. I named the other accounts because I find it exceptionally unlikely for such a large number of people to be making the same edits to a person who is virtually unknown even in that local community. I understand that this is a low-stakes case and this comment is only intended to clarify my intentions. I apologise if this has been the improper way to raise these concerns but I could/can not think of a reasonable explanation for the canvassing. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 13:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm not going to use CU here. What we have a most probably a bunch of people with an interest in a local subject, some of whom have created more than one accounts. It's not a violation of WP:SOCK simply to have two different accounts - perhaps they forgot a password and created a new account, or they wanted one account for their own PC and another one for public devices, or whatever. It would be a violation if they were trying to pass themselves off as multiple people, but I don't see that here - indeed, many of these accounts haven't edited for years. The only accounts I could possibly run CU on would be FactFinderGeneral and MyanMar2022, and they don't look like the same person to me. Closing without action.  Girth Summit  (blether)  13:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - the article has now been deleted, so even if this is sock- or meatpuppetry, any disruption caused by it is effectively moot. Archiving case. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)