Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/C. W. Gilmore/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The SPA which I suspect is a sock, a two-edit account added this section to the Ridgefield, WA article, which was shortly removed by IP, which was then restored by an undoubtedly good-faith editor who does not generally edit the page. From that point onward, made 14 edits restoring or expanding the SPA's edit, in what appears to be seamless writing style. Their last edit, a third revert of three different editor's removals of the original SPA's material, was nearly identical in the relevant section, Recent history. Anmccaff (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment, I am C. W. Gilmore and I have only used my account on wikipedia since I started in 2011. I have no knowledge of the other accounts or anyone that used those accounts.  The first time I saw the article for Ridgefield, Washington was this version .  I can only say that it appears Anmccaff is doing this for other reasons  and for other motivations.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason the words may look the same is that I was attempting to restore what had been there and expand it with referenced material so it was a fuller section that read well and was better sourced. I took what was there before and built on it.  I had no clue, or care who had originally put it there; I just knew it was relevant to the article and thought I could help with more information.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My apologies about talking up your time, but someone is trying to find anything to pin on me, anything.  Sorry again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Gilmore's statement is "satisfactory". but so, frankly, are most proven sock puppets...and this does not rule out the possibility that 's role is stalking horse, and the SPA himself is the problem. Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * C. W. Gilmore is well advised to assume good faith on the part of the filing editor and to not edit war over their preferred content in the article in question. However, their explanation as to why there edits look similar to those of Newwikiaccount666 is satisfactory. Closing without action. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The timing and number of edits leaves a lot unanswered questions with respect to motivation for sockpuppetry. As such, G.W. Gilmore's explanation is more likely than the alternative. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note -Alternative route have been used to show the material in question Jefferson Davis Park, Washington; all objectionable direct connections to Ridgefield, Washington have been removed from every article I could find; and consensus building efforts are under way to ensure there will not be an edit war on the page. I will again state, that I do not, have not and will not ever engage in the accused activities, and I hope this matter is settled to everyone's satisfaction.  Sorry for taking up your time.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Greetings. So, this is a brand new account that has never made any edits, and yet it is exhibiting some strange behavior. It "thanked" me for four edits that I made in 2010. As you can see, those edits are just insignificant and inconsequential meta-commentary, that have long been buried in the talk archives, as well as the page history, of a now-inactive Wikiproject. It's rare enough for newbies to even come across AAU these days, but to venture into the talk page archives, or to dig though hundreds of edits back to 2010 in the talk page history and start sending "thanks", is downright suspicious. It would seem inexplicable, but it raises red flags because this type of creepy, stalkerish behavior, which included sending "thanks" for seemingly-random edits, was very recently reported to ANI as part of the complaint against C. W. Gilmore, which led to his community-imposed indefinite block&mdash;a consensus I participated in and strongly supported. CWG has already showed signs of directing this type of subtly stalkerish behavior at me, by pinging me to a completely unrelated discussion prior to his block. I took this as an attempt at harassment and have been anticipating continued attempts, as he has been known to engage in obsessive, if subtle, stalking/harassing behaviors in the past. While it's possible I'm reading too much into this situation, I think the case for a CU is strong and I’d rather be safe than sorry. Thanks in advance. S warm  ♠  00:13, 17 May 2018 (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
❌. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)