Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codedon/Archive

Report date April 9 2010, 02:10 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This one's already been indefblocked for trolling, but I think it's very unlikely to be a new user; there may be genuine new users who go from this to this in a week, but it's stretching AGF to the limit. Normally, I'd consider a combination of bulk copyediting with maintenance tagging, and within a week of arriving going to User talk:Malleus Fatuorum and trying to start an argument, as being prima facie evidence of a Mattisse account, with an outside chance of it being Horsey/Ecoleetage/Pastor Theo; the only doubt is that this doesn't seem either of their style. I'm certain enough that this will turn out to be one of our long-term abusers evading a ban that I think it warrants a RFCU to flush out the probable accompanying sockfarm. – iride  scent  02:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by –  iride  scent


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Contribs show targeted editing against articles created by User:Mono. Review at ER is quick to accuse (although some points may be valid, I doubt anyone purposely misspells names to spite others). I was suspecting Mattisse, who still continues to hound and harass other users. Diff by Iridescent above shows experienced editing, as well as this edit.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by –  iride  scent  02:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC) to see if we can find a sockmaster here. Tim Song (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Checkuser completed. No sockmaster identified. for any of the usual suspects (i.e., Mattisse, Pastor Theo et al) based on technical evidence. Risker (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

18 May 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets

User posted a warning on my talkpage, removed comments, citing WP:MYSPACE. That issue aside, a user with 13 edits (who hadn't been welcomed with a template) citing a semi-known policy (not core) seems rather suspicious. It is possible that the user read over all the policies, however, it is odd that he found me and singled me out. We must WP:AGF as this may be perfectly innocent, however, I would like a second opinion and/or check. Please note a previous dispute (possibly related) with Codedon regarding trolling (see here and here). Thank you. m o ɳ o 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by m o ɳ o

This is pretty ridiculous. First off, I'm not Indian. That's far from the truth. Second, I wouldn't go so far to disparage myself just to get unblocked. If people don't want me here, I'll simply leave and never come back. If people don't appreciate my edits, so be it. I wouldn't call myself a "big fucking dick". Lawlar (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * Lawlar also found another user and deleted most of her talkpage (see contributions). OTOH, most of the other edits are actually quite constructive.  No idea if this is a sock or otherwise but the edit pattern is very odd, to say the least  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Add: Where on earth did come from?  That editor has been blocked for years.  Have you got the right number of question marks'?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly an experienced IP who decided to create an account. Why is User:Unknown a suspect too? I see nothing wrong with their contributions. Airplaneman   ✈  02:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant to imply another user who may be unknown.-- m o ɳ o 23:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I notice this has not been investigated yet. IMO, there is no connection between Lawler and Codedon or any other registered user. Lawler most likely edited as an IP and indeed has said as much on his/her talkpage. No need to pursue this. No WP:DUCKs here: just a very committed and thoughtful editor who made an honest mistake --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested by m o ɳ o  00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed Lawlar earlier, and I did briefly consider a relation to Codedon. But his language, tone, and seemingly more-clueful-than-most-noobs attitude is most intriguing... In the end, I don't think a CU is really needed at this time. I'd reverse that opinion if some similar trolling or other behavior occurs, of course.  — fetch ·  comms   23:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

– there not enough behavioral evidence to consider, and I think several others seem to agree that Lawlar is not a sock of anyone. –MuZemike 00:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Closing as no action, per MuZemike. Tim Song (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)