Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crouch, Swale/Archive

21 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Identical editing style - creating stub articles on remote places in Cumbria. Username taken from geographical location i.e. first article created. NtheP (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2011 (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 and tagged per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 11:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Article creations also deleted per WP:CSD. –MuZemike 17:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

27 July 2011
I suspect User:Watlingfen could be a Crouch, Swale sockpuppet.


 * 1) The user name is based on an English place name.
 * 2) Watlingfen's contributions to Hinckley include some poorly structured sentences.
 * 3) Watlingfen's inline references for Hinckley lack citation templates.

This doesn't sound much, and so far Watlingfen has not been nearly as bad as either Crouch, Swale or some Crouch, Swale sockpuppets. However, Crouch, Swale is a proven liar and has an indefinite block. Please will a senior admin at least test Watlingfen via CheckUser to either put my mind at rest or conform a link with Crouch, Swale?

Thanks, Motacilla (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesnt sound much, but as a user who limits themselves pretty much to small Lincolnshire related (hamlets etc) articles, Ive been approached by someone called User:Kkumar123 and wonder why this might be? Im hardly well known, and this person approached me yesterday in regard to "how to edit" Wiki. I was previously approached by User:Brattleby 36 who turned out to be a sock of User:Crouch, Swale and am now concerned that this may be the same person Panderoona (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

10 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Maybeabout 4 edited the userpage of to remove the sockpuppet notice. He had created his userpage and talk with a template, and I saw that behavior on The Red House 5 earlier (among other things, Red House 5 also created userpages for a bunch of other editors who had previously deleted their userpages (like JZG). Maybeabout 4 is blocked with email and talk page access blocked, but Red House 5 is able to edit their talkpage in case I am wrong (and using this template is some new suggested thing that I am ignorant of. Checkuser needed to confirm, as well as check for sleepers. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2011 (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 saw this about the same time Syrthiss did, I think. I've blocked and tagged several accounts, and blocked some IPs. I'm not sure how much good the latter will do, but we'll see. TN X Man 14:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

02 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Created vandalism page of the same name as the user. Calabe1992 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Added another contributor to the scibaby page.... Sailsbystars (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Also, perhaps User:Frzt62910? Similar style of name. Calabe1992 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, User:Jay12298 possibly. Searching for others. Calabe1992 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * history of sock farming Alexandria   (talk)  21:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good instincts, good catch, plus 24 more (W88761, R44557, Fr33356, I77890, Wa222256, O66687, Sd444465, Fdr5555, W888856, WL6773, Jlk8888, I8876p8, W22276, W444757, K576h78, W36599, Yt567, Wf5995, Yh66655, Dre626267, Ryt77778, Gf5578 and Y7745 .) I blocked those 24 from within the CU interface. Courcelles 21:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a check around the same time Courcelles did. Those accounts look ❌ compared to the available data on Scibaby. Those batch of socks are editing from a different continent from Scibaby. Other accounts look ❌ as well. Elockid  ( Talk ) 23:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

All above-reported socks, along with about 100 others (including ) are ✅ socks of and have all been blocked and tagged as such. –MuZemike 01:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that User:Jay12298 and User:Frzt62910 do appear to be ❌, though. –MuZemike 01:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The CU was pretty clear on who was a sock, so those other two are probably unrelated. They can be left alone for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

14 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I'm not sure what this person is trying to accomplish, but it seems pretty evident that these are socks of Gh18929, it seems accounts are created and then shorty after they edit Gh18929's userpage.. Just something to look into, I guess.. -  Dwayne   wuz here! ♫   15:21, 14 December 2011 (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
The following are ✅ as :



–MuZemike 16:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)