Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Critic11/Archive

14 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:Balloftwine had first edited Articles for deletion/Linda DeLibero on 21 April 2013 (diff). User:Fatpedro's first ever edit was 22 April 2013 in the same AfD (this edit). User:B Hastings' first edit was 1 May 2013, and their fourth edit was in the same AfD (diff) All three editors !voted keep. The article was deleted.

On 25 October 2013 an obscure article about Robin Spielberg had a large part of the content removed by User:Balloftwine (diff). On 9 November 2013, User:69.142.93.67 also removed a large part of the content and then nominated the article for deletion at 15:19 (their only 2 edits) (diff). At 15:24 User:Balloftwine added his agreement with deletion to the AfD. The other delete arguments in the AfD have come from User:B Hastings (diff) and User:Fatpedro appears to have answered a comment directed at User:Balloftwine (diff). During the course of the AfD, the following users have removed content from the article: User:Balloftwine:, , , , , , - they received a final warning against continuing this. The removal of content was then taken on by User:Fatpedro:, , , , , , ,.


 * User:Balloftwine has 150 edits in total.
 * User:Fatpedro has 63 edits in total.
 * User:B Hastings has 28 edits in total.

Very small numbers but all three have !voted the same way in two AfDs six months apart, with little contribution to AfD outside of these. Despite the low edit counts the following articles have also been edited by more than one of these three accounts:
 * Sylvia Beach - User:Balloftwine and User:Fatpedro
 * Caroline Hoxby - User:Balloftwine and User:Fatpedro

All three named accounts have very brief one line user pages. All three sign their posts in a similar way, without '--' preceding the username (see Articles for deletion/Robin Spielberg for an example). Should these prove to be accounts used by the same person, their edits constitute sockpuppetry at two AfDs, one of which was closed as delete despite their contributions and one of which is still in progress. Michig (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The 'user compare report' above shows further overlap in the editing from these accounts. --Michig (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Critic11 added - has contributed a very similar argument to the Robin Spielberg AfD and looking through the history was another one whose few AfD contributions include keep !voting at the Linda DeLibero AfD, as well as additional overlap with the other accounts. --Michig (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Hello -- I am not Balloftwine but we are acquaintances and used to be roommates. I don't know the others. Critic11 (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC) We took the same "how to be a WikiEditor" class at Tyngsboro high school three years ago -- the others might be other people in the class. Critic11 (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I see enough evidence to block the named accounts. Critic11's statement that he and Balloftwine were in high school three years ago is clearly nonsense. Critic11 has been editing here for five years (since 2008). Even if the class was his senior class, when he would be about 18, that would mean he started editing here at 16. His initial edits are not those of a 16-year-old. His own user page says he's a writer and "formerly a scholar". Pretty good if he's about 21 years old now. And Balloftwine, his supposed classmate, is, according to his user page, a retired English teacher. In reviewing the edits of the named accounts, I kept seeing tangents into other accounts that looked suspicious. For that reason, I believe a CU for sleepers would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches to one another:
 * is . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I blocked and tagged the confirmed accounts. I indeffed the master because of the blatant deceit here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * is . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I blocked and tagged the confirmed accounts. I indeffed the master because of the blatant deceit here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * is . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I blocked and tagged the confirmed accounts. I indeffed the master because of the blatant deceit here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

24 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Critic11 was blocked December 28, 2013. Jpeeps's first edit was the next day, December 29. One of critic11's pages was Linda DeLibero (afd), which jpeeps just re-created at Linda Delibero (afd in progress, note different capitalization). Editor's that have seen both AfD's have already noted the similarity between the two pages, and the second AfD is already starting to look like the first, with sockpuppets or meatpuppets begging to keep the page. Considering the previous pattern, checkuser is needed to stop any sleeper accounts, and an ip block on account creation is probably a good idea as well. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I'm not sure the nominator's comment about additional sockpuppets or meatpuppets showing up on the AfD is fair. So far, other than the IP and Jpeeps, the only other person arguing strenuously for a keep is, who has a long and independent edit history here (admin since 2008) and doesn't appear to be anyone's sockpuppet. It is probably still worth investigating whether the IP and Jpeeps are the same, or whether either is the same as Critic11 (if that is still checkable), though. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Everything in the archive is and the CU is  as Jpeeps has edited exclusively through webhosts. That being said, I think that's fairly damning technical evidence in and of itself when you're being accused of socking with behavioural evidence to back it up. I'll leave additional behavioural analysis to the reveiwing Admin/Clerk.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  01:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I indeffed and tagged Jpeeps. No action against the IP who seems to be done. There was no article intersection between Jpeeps and the master or the other socks. So, I had to look a little deeper, and I saw evidence of interest intersection, in particular references to scholarship and scholars, as well as minorities (usually Blacks). Jpeeps and the others wrote similarly, generally very articulate with obvious signs of education. Also, Jpeeps and at least one other sock forgot to sign and then went back to sign. Finally, I took into account 's comments. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)