Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CrispinAspen/Archive

23 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

CrispinAspen has been warned and reverted repeatedly for edit warring and adding POV content to Fight the New Drug. I've warned the user on his talk page and along with other users I've warned him extensively on the article's talk page. This user has been reverted over and over again, and after this most recent revert, who should appear but Ryanclarkwernwer with yet another POV edit. But what really piqued my interest was the fact that this was the user's very first edit to Wikipedia. And what's even more interesting is how strikingly similar the edit summary used resembles those used by CrispinAspen as evidenced by the reversion history. Particularly striking is the shared use of the word "irrelevant" not once, but twice by CrispinAspen whilst POV pushing. The word was also used by IP contributor 173.198.168.136 with this edit. The only other contributions of 173.198.168.136 consist of removing legitimate WP:NPOV concerns of other users on the article's talk page... twice. I believe that all three contributors are connected and using sockpuppetry to deliberately and willfully introduce biased material into this article, while attempting to quietly smother the concerns of other editors. I request that CheckUser evidence be used to corroborate the evidence I have already presented, and if the users are found to be connected, I request that they be blocked from editing. I believe CheckUser is necessary in this case, because although I find the similar edit summaries and timing of these edits very compelling, using the same word in an edit summary may not be enough evidence alone.  M w w 1 1 3    (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * CU would be useful because I could see this going either way. Ryanclarkwernwer's name is suspiciously close to the name of the group's founder, which could explain why the first edit was the usual censorship and propaganda the other two have been carrying out.  The IP's behavior is consistent with someone who has a COI.  Mww113 does make a good case for similar writing voice, though.  Also, CrispenAspen's lack of talk page contributions could be complementary to the IP's disruptive talk page behavior (i.e. a refusal to discuss matters).  Said refusal to discuss matters could be explained by a COI.
 * Of course, I could also imagine that it's just two WP:TEND editors and a third with a COI -- if I imagine more good faith from each editor but less from the internet as a whole. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
It's not just Ryanclarkwerner's first edit - it's his only edit. The use of the word "irrelevant" is hardly much to go on as it's quite common. The edits of the alleged master may be POV, and the edit by the alleged puppet may also be POV, but generally we look for a more direct correlation of the same POV, e.g., the two accounts supporting each other. Although it's not unheard of to run a CU when the alleged puppet has only one edit, it's usually either for a known sock master or with very compelling behavioral evidence, neither of which circumstance is present here. At this point I'm not declining the CU. I'll wait to see if a clerk endorses or declines it. However, if the CU request languishes for too long with no action by a clerk and there's nothing new here, I will probably decline it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * . Nothing has changed since my comments above. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)