Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callumpaul40/Archive

06 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Numerous SPAs created to argue against the deletion of the article Josh Simmons. Each account has only one or two edits, all to the AfD. Classic sockpuppet/meatpuppet tells such as overuse of "the above user" and similar formulations. The reason that I've requested CheckUser is that it's unclear if this is all sockpuppetry, or if there's meatpuppetry involved - both are quite plausible, seeing as the subject of the article is a high school student (my apologies for the behavior of teenagers everywhere), and there's a significant difference between how we should proceed if they're all socks in the same drawer (indefblocks all around, probably) vs. if they're meatpuppets (throw up Not a ballot, cut more slack to the individual users, etc.). I'd normally think this was fairly clearly all one person's doing, but a lot of the normal signs of that can also be signs of a bunch of guys sitting in a school computer lab together, looking at what each other is writing, or coördinating a Facebook campaign or something.

Other notable things:  — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 19:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * removing part of a delete !vote
 * removing IP 2.97's second !vote only for 2.97 to restore it minutes later


 * While I was writing this, TParis hatted the !votes, protected the page, and deleted the article - I think a check could still be useful, in case these users become disruptive elsewhere, and to know whether or not we have a sockpuppetteer on our hands. That said, if the reviewing clerk/CU thinks that an SPI would now be redundant, I understand. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * @DQ: On the topic of Callumpaul, any thoughts on the name similarity with ? — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 09:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Wouldn't a CU still be helpful? If nothing else, it could find sleepers. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * As I remember the check from earlier, all are ✅, except Callumpaul40 who I thought was . . -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  00:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the master on behavioral evidence. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Francophonie&Androphilie's comments are worth taking a look to see if we have more accounts and if there is a similarity. I can't run a CU right now, so i'm leaving this endorsed. If no other CU picks up on it, i'll post the results tonight. -- DQ on the road   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Callump90, due to the similar username and hoax-ish editing, I ran some checks. The data I saw indicates that Callump90 is unrelated to the accounts above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-closing then, since no sleepers were picked up. Callump90 has already been blocked for other reasons anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)