Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmoneti/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Tedweverka is an account created on 7 September 2018, which did not make their first edit until 7 January 2019 , when they edited the Induced demand article. They got involved in a content discussion (later dispute) on the article's talk page on 9 January 2018. They were unable to provide a reliable source to support their position in the dispute, but continued to argue their position, based on their opinion.On 28 January, another editor, Cmoneti, joined the discussion, supporting Tedweverka. Cmoneti is an editor who made one single edit on 30 January 2005, and did not edit again until they attempted on 27 January 2019 to make the edit that Tedweverka had been arguing for, citing in their edit summary a Wikipedia article. . When they were reverted, they then joined the dispute discussion on Talk:Induced demand in support of Tedveverka's position. This has all the hallmarks of an attempt to create an illegitimate consensus by the use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets. (Tedweverka later attempted to change the article based on this "consensus".) Cmoneti's coming out of hibernation after 14 years to strongly support Tedweverka's opinion -- again presenting no reliable sources, just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH -- should be sufficient to justify a CU examination to see if these two accounts are related. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now Cmoneti did the same edit that Tedweverka had previously done. . Could just be two editors who agree, but (given the above) it could also be tag-team edit-warring by two sock or meatpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the check. Awfully odd, though, that 14-year gap for Cmoneti. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (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

 * ❌ technically. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I had another CU review my findings because some of the technical details on the suspected sock here were weird (VPNs and ISPs that you wouldn’t expect.) That being said, the named master used a static IP from a legitimate ISP I’m familiar with and it geolocated a few thousand miles away from where the suspected sock’s geolocation from ISPs I’m familiar with were. That being said, I left it open for behavioral evaluation by a clerk or reviewing admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Collusion / canvassing is quite possible. However, socking has mostly been ruled out, so I'm closing this report. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)