Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carvoeiro/Archive

Evidence submitted by Shakehandsman
Both accounts were created in the last two days and both exclusively edit the article Vera Baird. Both accounts make similar edits, watering down sections of the article (for example the section on attempting to claim for Christmas decorations on expenses) and removing referenced material. Both accounts also add the same unsourced material and versions of events not reflected in sources, for example in the edits relating to "Criticism of judge" and in terms of Barid's pre-Parliametary career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vera_Baird&action=historysubmit&diff=378699151&oldid=378614086 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vera_Baird&action=historysubmit&diff=378453229&oldid=375457153

Shakehandsman (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
– I'm not 100% on behavioral evidence, as the two users' editing patterns are different, although their motives are the same. Hence, it's possible this may be two separate people. –MuZemike 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Checking because they both edited exclusively that article, otherwise I would have denied the request). . CU can't do much here, sorry. -- Luk  talk 12:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Possible, but it's not clear based on behavioral or CU evidence. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 21:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Shakehandsman
I realise the previous investigation was inconclusive but a further likely sock has now appeared and the edits are becoming quite tiresome now.

All three accounts created recently and exclusively edit the article Vera Baird. All accounts make similar edits, watering down sections of the article (for example the section on attempting to claim for Christmas decorations on expenses, second home information, and criticism of a judge) and remove referenced material. All accounts seem to have extensive knowledge of Baird and her more recent activities. All new material added is always unsourced and all three accounts edit for 30-45 minutes minutes.

Two of the accounts also seek to water down the section on the dog fouling incident and speeding offences, most notably trying to emphasise that Baird was somehow abused by the woman who reported her to the police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vera_Baird&action=historysubmit&diff=378699151&oldid=378614086 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vera_Baird&action=historysubmit&diff=378453229&oldid=375457153 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vera_Baird&action=historysubmit&diff=381164644&oldid=381160313 Shakehandsman (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Highly that  = ;
 * That is related.
 * Tiptoety talk 05:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked both likely & possible account. Possible account had strong behavioral correlation. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Shakehandsman
Onomatopaeia making exactly the same types of edits as all the previous socks, for example censoring section of the article regarding the judge, election swing and expenses in the same way. Has come into the talk page on this instance, citing a "range of people" make the supposed "right" repeated corrections - i.e. they have knowledge of the edits by all the other socks. As with the other socks this user only edits the article Vera Baird. Again all edits are unsourced. Finally, there's a deliberate emphasis on highlighting that the account is a new user, for example the heading used in the talk page is "A new account writes". Also note the extensive knowledge of Baird's career, even including events occurring in the last few days, therefore possibly suggesting a close link to Baird of some sort too. Shakehandsman (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Pretty sure Onomatopoeia is a sockpuppet, so I've tagged and blocked accordingly. Also the master account wasn't blocked or tagged, so I did that too. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

08 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP behaviour is very similar to that of previous socks. The changes were all made in one large edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vera_Baird&action=historysubmit&diff=442989141&oldid=438099725

IP makes various unsourced positive additions, e.g. "becoming the first Labour candidate in nearly two decades to retain her deposit". Similar behaviour to this previous addition regarding expenses

User again has detailed knowledge of Baird's background and information not found in any sources. Similar behaviour seen here: 

There is use of inappropriate terms for example "Baird won with only 7% smaller vote than Mowlam" and unexplained and undocumented removal of important references such as for largest swing.Perhaps the clearest evidence of sockpuppetry is editing of the expenses, judge, speeding and dog fouling sections adding unsourced content and generally making less inline with sources. Similar behaviour by socks here:   

As with Carvoeiro no edit summaries are provided.

Note, User:Thechocolatebiscuit edited the article a number of times immediately after the IP which is also highly suspicious, and they have a similar style in that they do not use edit summaries. Their editing appears to be fairly constructive for now though. Shakehandsman (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2011 (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 1 week. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

25 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As seen in the archives for this case I had suspicions about the account sometime ago but it appeared they were behaving reasonably well, a tendency to remove a few refs being the main concern. Editing is becoming increasingly similar to those above and they've now removed all the dog-fouling information. The food reference in the name also show a similarity to one of the accounts above and I've done a little more analysis which shows editing times are very similar too, with the tendency to operate around midday, midnight and sometimes 7pm GMT. (McKewenstreet edited at midday, Carvoeiro around midnight, Gammonsteak 7pm). On one occasion the account edited the Baird article just 4 minutes after the banned IP above. A lack of edit summaries is also a factor it has in common with many of the previous socks. Shakehandsman (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2012 (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
While Carvoeiro and all other socks are, the behavioral evidence is fairly convincing. Blocked and tagged. --MuZemike 20:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

26 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Brand new account created after banning of latest sock, has solely edited Baird article as per McKewenstreet, GammonSteak, Onomatopaeia and sockmaster. Removed information on swing at the last election as per Onomatopaeia. Also as with previous socks appears to have highly up to date knowledge of the subject not found in any sources, for example the new claim that she has moved to Newcastle is not found in the new source given (and a check of Google news doesn't provide any sources for such a statement either). Almost all the other socks/master displayed the same level of knowledge. Tendency to fail to give edit summaries on some occasions as per McKewenstreet and GammonSteak.Shakehandsman (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2012 (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
CityGirl24 is to be the same as Thechocolatebiscuit, who was blocked as a sock. TN X Man 14:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with the CU on this one. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  07:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)