Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corkyn1971/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both the user and IPs were removing sources for seemingly no reason on Konstantin Nikolaev. After I reverted the IPs and issued a 4im warning, Corkyn began making the exact same edits, seemingly to avoid scrutiny.  Invalid OS talk  18:14, 12 November 2021 (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

 * A previously unregistered editor signing up for an account is not sockpuppetry. Please report any disruptive editing through the usual channels. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

First IP makes an edit very similar to one previously made by Corkyn. Second IP leaves a message on my talk page about the edit they made after I reverted. Unsure if they should be blocked or given a second chance, but I'll leave that decision to whoever takes a look at this case.  Invalid OS talk  12:58, 21 December 2021 (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

 * One IP made one edit 4 days ago, and other one edit yesterday. Closing with no action. Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar reference removal behavior, ellipses at the end of edit summaries, and excuses as to why they removed references.

Diffs:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (shows edit summary excuses)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (From before Corkyn created an account)

Unsure about the two most recent IPs, but here's diffs from them:
 * 
 * (Reverting my revert of the previous diff)  Invalid OS talk  15:35, 12 May 2022 (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

 * - Polnoe dermo and Perviyj look like pretty obvious socks based on their attempts to remove the same source: . Please indef these two accounts. The IPs haven't edited recently. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * --Blablubbs (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
 One look at that edit summary is enough. Also removed the same source as this edit:  Invalid OS talk  16:30, 2 June 2022 (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

 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Doesn't show exactly the same pattern of editing, but removed references in a similar manner to previous edits by Corkyn. Also cited the Kremlin directly <b style="font-family:monospace,mono"> Invalid <sup style="color:#A60;margin-left:.25ex">OS <sub style="color:#06A;margin-left:-2.25ex">talk </b> 16:56, 6 September 2023 (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

 * I don't see the similarity. They didn't remove the references, they tried to reorganize the article but mostly left the references intact. They moved some - they didn't add the Kremlin citation, they just moved it from where it was already in the article (and you didn't remove it, it's still there in the current revision). What they did was a whitewash, but in a fairly different way from how socks have done in the past. Closing for insufficient evidence. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)