Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bunzil/Archive

26 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Thank you for your time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Prior ✅ history of socking, see SuperGirl block, SureFire block, and Requests for checkuser/Case/Bunzil.
 * 2) Characteristics include spam promotional material related to Derek Abbott and J. M. R. Parrondo.
 * 3) Also spam promotional material tied in with Wickedictionary.
 * 4) One-line text to create userpage as a "bluelink".
 * 5) Usernames which sound similar to each other (BhangraGirl, SuperGirl); (SaloSalo, SatoSato).
 * 6) Compare prior comments at Requests for checkuser/Case/Bunzil made by reporting admin that users upload images with questionable copyright status or ownership, then take a look at upload logs for all of the above-listed accounts.
 * 7) and  = both edited article Seymore Butts and both edited articles related to Derek Abbott.
 * 8) creates article Wickedictionary,  uploads image cover of book to article Wickedictionary.
 * Ongoing deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Wickedictionary.
 * Conflict of interest report listed at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard.

These all have the most relatively more recent (2012) contribs of the bunch. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note on relatively more recent contribs

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

 * - Everything is, and except for 2-3 users, way beyond it. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you, would still appreciate blocks on above accounts due to the strong behavioral evidence. :) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheez'n'rice Cirt - this is the second one tonight I've dealt with from you. It's not so much stale as mummified, and I haven't got a template for that - will you take it away and bring a fresh one. Do you think this guy is still editing today, and what accounts has he used to edit with in the last 90 days.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The most recent appears to be, in this case the behavioral evidence is indeed quite strong, along with prior ✅ previous case of socking. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is still 5 months old. As Elen has said, we generally don't sweat stuff that old, it is stale, and odds are they aren't going to come back.  The idea is to prevent abuse, and there is nothing to prevent if they aren't coming back.  It tends to waste time if doing all the work to block someone isn't going to make a difference, since they are never going to edit again with that name. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the explanation, but the pattern has been there for quite a long time with these associated accounts. At least now, at this point, we have documentation about it, should future socks arise again going forwards. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing newer than 5 months old, not worth the resources if they aren't coming back. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are no edits from these accounts later than 15 May 2012 there would be little point in blocks. The best plan would be to keep an eye on the articles that the sockmaster is interested in. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)