Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cquinn/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I came across this user who has made several non-neutral POV edits related to articles concerning the Independent Democratic Conference.

My main conflict came with IP 198.163.154.242, objecting to the distinction of marking IDC members in their infoboxes, despite the fact the the New York State Senate page and the Senate template make a party-level distinction of this conference as different than regular Democrats in that legislative body. I even attempted an ANI here but was told no violation because I only reported two reversions. (Note: I'm on a self-imposed 2RR rule myself, hence the early report because it was clear IP wouldn't stop.)

The damning evidence I newly found was this "Cquinn" account, formerly known as "TAforNY" (an obvious COI username which was changed, TA being Tony Avella, an IDC member) surfaced making the exact same edits as IP 198.163.154.242 on several IDC members' pages. I reverted some, and saw that other users likewise reverted on other pages because Cquinn was deleting sources, such as this one.

However, the most interesting point came when I posted a notice on Cquinn's page and read their block history and saw that they forgot to sign in when they answered to the unblock and recommendation they keep their editing neutral because they have a COI and they responded, in obviously their own voice, "thanks, I'll keep that in mind and keep it neutral" signed by none other than 198.163.154.242 here.

I added YourAnemone as a precaution, though their edit summaries suggest a different user, albeit with the same aims and same likely COI. 97.34.194.8, 47.17.214.208, and Tlc2112 made fewer edits, but are likely related. Live1317, D13Friend, Truthfinder2017, and 96.239.17.120 also made parallel changes at another IDC member's page and might be related.

Some of these accounts are almost certainly stale and I know we can't run CUs on IPs or publish identities of IPs, but I would like some confirmation whether there's technical data connecting these accounts or/and some behavioral analysis (especially for Cquinn and 198.163.154.242) if any admins have the time. JesseRafe (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ETA: Missed 198.163.154.237, same MO. Missed due to similarity due to other IPs. JesseRafe (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Greetings! I see that I have been brought into this and understand the accusation. I will offer this - a check of our (and by that I mean the multiple users listed here) IP addresses would offer that these addresses are coming from the same network, a public network at a workplace, so it's not sufficient (in my mind anyway) to prove that all of us are the same person. A check of said IP would probably be enough to make an argument against Mr. Quinn's conflict of interest, but not the issue at hand here. As I said on my own talk page, based on reviewing edits from several of these IPs, "I had been using User:198.163.154.237 before logging in at work, so the last few entries on there would appear to be me - although my entries that I can recognize on there seem to begin around the beginning of September". I believe a lot of this has its root in a, let's say, differing point of view on several of those IDC articles. I don't mean this is a targeted claim against myself and any other users, but I appreciate it may be difficult to parse out several accounts with a similar IP address if there's an established conflict of interest problem on the table. I do not have a conflict as I do not work for any of those members, but if it helps resolve the matter I will refrain in the future from editing those articles. Feel free to let me know any questions/concerns you may have. Spelf (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - As the filer points out YourAnemone is likely to be a different person. The others are all either IP's or stale. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , does this mean only the CU is declined or the whole SPI is null because they're IPs or stale. The larger issue is with Cquinn and the current IP, listed first 198... They're the ones active and the ones with the diff suggesting they're the same person. Cquinn had acknowledged their COI previously, the IP, however, is engaged in edit-warring without declaring their COI which I allege is the same conflict being the same individual. JesseRafe (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Only the CheckUser request. The behavioural evidence will still be evaluated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Closing with no action. IP's and the accounts are either stale or appear to be separate individuals. Sro23 (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)