Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Combatinfvet/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Earlier today we had complaints given on the MILHIST talk page for the article 34th Infantry Division (United States). The allegations here concern the apparent need of the account(s) in question to push the "correct" name of the division (red bull division) in the article space. After a sideways comment from that this seemed to be reminiscent of earlier attempts by different accounts. I decided to take a lap through the article's history, and I did in fact find a handful of accounts whose behavior is suspicious enough to warrant a listing here for further investigation. The accounts and their edits are as follows: I want to state here that I laid a dragnet and caught these specific accounts, but there are two I am unsure of (Beartruth and the isp account). I'm listing them here only in the interest of covering all of the bases such as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:The Red Bulls - insistent on adding the "red bull"s to everything in the 34 infantry division article. Editing history at present shows this to be an SPA. Second account to have moved 34th INfantry Division (United States) to conform with "red bull" name.
 * User:PrometheusAvV moved page to 34th Red Bull. Went Dark in October.
 * User:DCB moved image to 34th red bull in 34th article and distinctive unit insignia page. Editor is apprently active on other wikis.
 * User:Jackson991103 Editing history suggests possible SPA, primary contributions have been exclusively to 34th infantry division.
 * 86.171.216.163 edited the article to move the red bull insignia around, but i am rather fuzzy on this one (it could just be a coincidence). Listed here to cover the bases.
 * User:BEARtruth89 - Sockpuppet investigations/Beloki/Archive No concrete evidence to support that this is them, however noting here that I found at least 1 account tied to another SPI. Since this account has used other socks before its not out of the realm of possibility that this could be tied to them, however I doubt it very much.
 * User:MinnesotaNationalGuard - use of the term "red bull" here, here. Account is blocked already for unrelated reasons.
 * User:Combatinfvet use of the term red bull. Sole contributions are to 34th infantry division.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * Quite daring to accuse a former ArbCom member of one of the largest sister projects of sock puppetry based on so little evidence. --Vogone (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * +1, very nonsensical claim. No CheckUser action should be taken against User:DCB. In fact, the global file rename action was proposed by another user. As distintive seemed to be a misspelling of distinctive it is very obvious that this non-native speaker simply followed this obvious request. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Its called sockpuppet investigations for a reason: we suspect the accounts brought here are up to no good based on what we find in our own version of investigation. When we bring what we have here its with the understanding that we are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. From where I was sitting, without looking at the userpages or the rights or anything else, this made sense. Obviously, if it is determined that the account has nothing to do with the accusation, then the fault is with me and I will apologize, just know that there are two sides to everything, and from my side it looked like a legit call. As a practical matter, this process has already served its purpose here by ensure that the accusation(s) leveled at the accounts are checked by independent third party people to ensure that any such claim(s) are shown to be substantiated. Imagine what would have happened if I had acted on my own before coming here. THAT would have been daring...and ultimately, probably would have gotten me a lot more than verbal grief here, don't you think? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 12:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting what you believe to "make sense", if that includes accusing random users correcting typos on request as sock puppeteers … This does not even have to do with looking at user rights and/or user pages. --Vogone (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the history of this account, or what other accounts its connected too. My original feeling on this was the fact that a brand new account showed up with their very first edits being of a controversial nature on a talk page, then started blanking other user's comments on top of it.  I began to feel this was probably someone who has been here before, possibly starting a second account to evade a block or ban, made even more so evident by their knowledge of unblock appeal procedures which they pressed no less than three times on their user page, complete with edit summaries something also a new user wouldn't be that very well versed in. -O.R.Comms 16:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From the person who actually own the third account(Jackson991103):


 * I just noticed this annoucement after I came back from school, sorry. (My cell phone was confiscated by my parents for my 'poor grades'.)


 * Ok, it's my bad. I forgot the password for my last account, so I applied another one. Then I suddenly realized that I used to write down my password on a paper or something. After that, I searched for it and I found it. But, maybe the 'account loader'(a tool used to preload the account information so that you don't need to type your account and password every single time) had stored my previous account information, so that I might have a couple of accounts applied with one single e-mail account.And you can send an e-mail to my account to check my identity if you want to prove that all these accounts are all belong to me.


 * I applied the Wikipedia account because I noticed that every time I edit the article, my IP address will show up on the bottom of the webpage. To protect my information, I want to apply an account for cover it (not for bad use, you IT guys can check my IP address anyway).


 * And, I am from China, though the political environment in China may be too 'oppressed' (should I use this word or something better?), but I browse Wikipedia simply for gaining knowledge that I can't get and also is impossible to get in Chinese territory or on Chinese wbesites (Well, you know...).


 * I am interested in history ang politics, especially the U.S. history and its military and worldwide political events (For I used to play Heart of Iron III then I fell in love with it.) Though I may not agree all the saying in the Wikipedia (as a Chinese), but I respect it because it reflects what people in other parts of the world think about China and Chinese people.


 * (Should I add a picture or something to prove it is me, or e-mail?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson991103 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * If the behavioral evidence is enough to ensnarl a long-time contributor like DCB, then clearly it is not enough. Closing without prejudice against a new request with stronger evidence. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)