Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craddock1/Archive

30 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

After I nominated Amirite for speedy deletion, was created and made their one and only edit to remove the template. After another editor reverted, the IP did the same thing (three times). Craddock1 posted a message on my talk page saying that they had asked their "brother" to create the James9210 account.

The AfD has attracted a few users with only a small number of contributions, but has been taken up by the "article rescue squadron", which makes it difficult to separate the sockpuppets from the kneejerk "keep" voters. is a brand new user with no other edits outisde of the AfD. is a relatively new user now editing Amirite. I have requested checkuser because it seems (to me) likely that Amirite is a paid editing job and so there may be other socks to find. Additionally, ARS is associated with a number of sockpuppeting users, one of whom was fairly recently blocked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Please close this case immediately and give Carbuncle a warning for being hostile and rude and also wasting everyone's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And could this popular website have someone who just mentioned the Wikipedia article and asked for help? I Google search that website for "Wikipedia" and get 32,000 results.  And the recently blocked ARS editor wasn't socking to stack votes, but to avoid harassment.  I also posted before you, pointing out Hdsmith7674 had no post unrelated to Amirite, and questioning his claim that CBS and others had covered them.  So obviously I'm not trying to keep it at all cost.   D r e a m Focus  00:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely not a sock :P - Just a newbie doing some work on some of the pages designated for improvement. I do recognize the article could get deleted, but if its going to stay it does need improving. And what a better place to practice than improving an article. (I learned how Infoboxes work today and how to build one :)) My interests are more in east african/arabian/indian subcontinent arts, crafts and antiquities. I like.coms a bit too but that project gets a lot of attention. Note to all the admins present - I am really good with proof reading and in the neutral voice. If you want to fire a few articles my way on talk which need grammar, sentence, structure etc working I'd be happy to get to work on them. Boatingfaster (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Again Carbuncle demonstrating his grudge - please see the debate page where he seems to have a personal agenda. I have explained myself about the multiple accounts. Also Carbuncle is not an active user on Wikipedia and only makes a few contributions per year which leads me to wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have now seen you are not fit to be commenting on people's article's, let alone marking them for deletion http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=125

Delicious Carbuncle has been blocked on Wikipedia before and this sort of behvaiour should not be tolerated.

Furthermore your behaviour has been reported through the internet. A quick google search brought up many results: e.g here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28826&st=40

That MfD, of evidence/background content and diffs to be used on the RFCU regarding Delicious carbuncle and their interactions with several users was disturbingly derailed by Wikipedia Review editors who attempted to OUT the main author. This is a part of the behaviour that has been cited as problematic of Delicious carbuncle; that they use Wikipedia Review to essentially canvass offsite - especially when they don't get their way; and that they attempt to subdue and WP:Grief their perceived targets by publicly shaming and outing them. There was disagreement how intertwined the Wikipedia Review angle should be on the RFCU but this latest incident has helped clear up that Wikipedia Review is yet again being used to WP:Game Wikipedia, cause disruption and create WP:Drama on Wikipedia. It's sad but at least more and more editors are seeing how Wikipedia Review is used to erode collegial efforts and civility. IMHO, an RFCU must and will go forward but should not be compromised by rushing into it or being bullied by a website that seems to thrive on disrupting Wikipedia and enabling banned editors. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)
 * Incidentally, I contributed to Wikipedia Review under the username "Carbuncle". I'm sure if you look through my comments there you will find some juicy stuff to quote out of context. I've also written a few blog posts for Wikipediocracy that will knock your socks off. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to the below comment by Tom: This is just getting ridiculous now. I have never seen such a conspiracy and won't be returning to Wikipedia if this sort of behaviour continues. Please feel free to do a checkuser because I have nothing to hide. I've explained the James account and there is nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment, I concur with regards to the CU request. The main account is heavily involved on an AfD, and if socks are also weighing in it is problematic. I would rather have a sock identified (even though they are !voting my way), than reach a keep decision due to socks. I also find that Craddock1's comments border on personal attacks, and definitely do not assume good faith. I don't see any evidence of a grudge, for example, and based on what I've found on, I believe that the nomination for deletion by DC was made in good faith. GregJackP  Boomer!   12:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have said about 20 times now. Yes i asked my brother James to create an account and agree this was immature and it won't happen again.

'comment'I just searched this article and haven't found the word 'we' or 'our# mentioned once....? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have explained the James account and have also said I am more than happy for you do do a the check - I have nothing to hide. I have never seen a more hostile community - who thinks the worst of everything. In response to your comments you are not advancing your argument just in my opinion being difficult. So does the fact that the other users have only made a few edits make them a sockpuppet? This is ridiculous. In response to 'surprising knowledge of acronyms' it doesn't take a genius to type into google search the acronym and look up what it means. I have also asked admins and editors for links as to the rules and meanings of some things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to 'we' this doesn't make sense either - we is supposed to mean users who voted for the article which is what my position is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Reviewing this I think a CU investigation may be needed; there are users involved here with very few edits, except to low notability individuals. A lot of "we" and "our" used in communication. Styles of communication to me indicate there may different people here, but in contact in some way. There is the feeling of some underlying issue here, and I'd like a CheckUser just to confirm these accounts are unrelated (it may also be worth checking through the AFD history as well). --Errant (chat!) 11:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've explained above the key concern (per #3; the accounts have all edited very few articles, all of which are low-notability articles or AFD's with promotional issues). Is this not sufficient explanation? Diff for "we", which is what flagged my concern. This needs a careful look. --Errant (chat!) 13:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what part of my above message is unclear. One diff per account minimum. I see four accounts and one diff. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Deskana; I am the patrolling admin and have investigated this issue. It strikes me that there is an underlying problem here and I would like a checkuser to ascertain which accounts are linked. All accounts are fairly new users and have contributed in the ways I mentioned, which are all quite similar (across different articles). Some diffs if it will make you happy; Surprising knowledge of policy, Boatingfaster - unexpected entry to this article & AFD. James9210 only has one edit, clear sock of some description (possibly admitted to above). Only a few diffs, of same behaviour from the IP (Special:Contributions/86.149.216.3). Same story with Hdsmith7674; brand new user with surprising knowledge of the acronyms. These diffs are one each, so I suppose that ticks that box... but you will need to give this more than a cursory glance. If you don't trust my judgement in requesting CU as a patrolling admin then fine, however I did look into this in some depth to save you the bother... --Errant (chat!) 16:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot just perform checks on the recommendation of other users; to do so would make me negligent in my duty to ensure that checkuser is not misused or applied incorrectly. That is why it is standard practice to require diffs. I will review the evidence you have provided as soon as I get the chance. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. The diffs are here or there in this case, as I explained to begin with you need to look into the relevant edit histories. --Errant (chat!) 19:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see enough in Errant's diffs for a check:
 * The following are ✅, though obviously these results are also consistent with the explanation given by Craddock1:
 * The following are ✅:
 * The following are ✅:
 * The following are ✅:

The two groups appear to be ❌ to each other. Hdsmith7674 appears to be ❌. . T. Canens (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like this has been handled. Closing. (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)