Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cars And Computers/Archive

03 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Why else would the user remove a warning from the IP's talk page? Style of editing - even as sparse as it is - indicates a pattern. CU to confirm. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:14, 3 February 2013 (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

 * Seeing another account on the IP's talkpage vandalizing, I ran the check. is ✅ with . . --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  03:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked since it's block evasion from the IP. Tagged and closing. Rschen7754 09:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

24 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same exact editing style and capitalization style. There would also be no other reason for a supposedly new editor to point this out. Also see. Requesting CU to confirm suspicions (even though this is likely a duck).

For what it's worth, I wouldn't even have given a second thought to this being a potential sock, if it weren't for the user's other edits. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 19:39, 24 July 2013 (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

 * - Sock blocked for passing the duck test - no non-sock editor's first action is to attack (or overpraise) a particular other editor. He also specifically mentions his old IP address, which the previous two socks did as well. Requesting CU to see if he has any other socks laying around, as the last CU picked up an account that hadn't been listed. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. No sleepers found.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ponyo. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

10 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Admitted to being 75.71.217.106, which in turn was also confirmed to being a sock. Requesting CU to check for sleeper IPs and accounts. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 17:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * While the second IP deviates from the now-regular pattern of numbers, its only edits were on Warner Bros, and 75.71.217.106's talk page, so there is likely some affiliation. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 17:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * After going deeper, I noticed this now-blocked sock edited the IP's page. Why would this happen? Why would a random user edit a random IP talk page? Maybe there should be a check to confirm or deny a connection between Cars And Computers and User:Apple_Products_Are_Krap. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 17:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Admitted again. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 11 August 2013 (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

 * - No request on the IPs of course, but his past history and continued socking suggest that a sleeper check is appropriate. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I keep forgetting CU can't run against IP addresses. GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - No apparent sleepers. Tiptoety  talk 06:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a connection between this user and Apple Products Are Krap? <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are one in the same. Tiptoety  talk 19:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apple Products Are Krap is already blocked, so, closed. Courcelles 02:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

02 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Obvious enough re: username and grammar style that CU is not necessary, but requesting anyway to check for sleeper accounts. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 21:22, 2 October 2013 (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

 * Obviously ✅, no sleepers found this time around.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

28 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Admission: Also posted on CAC's page. I don't know if a sleeper check is in order. My apologies for posting this on a nonexistent spi page; I forgot caps. GABHello! 05:16, 28 December 2015 (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

 * IP blocked for 3 days. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)