Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cumlord69/Archive

14 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Posted a comment on Talk:Sean Smith (diplomat) wanting it to be deleted with no other contributions. He was subsequently blocked for having an inappropriate username, and 7 minutes after the block another account with no prior contributions replied to his comment to express agreement with the alleged puppeteer.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 03:17, 14 September 2012 (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

 * CU isn't helpful in finding sleepers, but obviously this is socking or meatpuppetry. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  09:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

14 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Only contribution is to make the same argument that the other socks/meatpuppets made.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 13:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

I have no idea what a sockpuppet is but I signed up after seeing the page and reading the discussion about whether it was notable. I've spent countless hours reading Wikipedia and I've always wanted to join and this article pushed me over the edge. I really get the feeling this guy falcon is irrationally going after people who disagree with him. I don't know any of these other people and I think it's immature to flag people's account in order to stifle comments rather than debate them.ChrysiAvgi (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's pretty obvious from the language you've used here that you are probably the same person as the other accounts. The appearance of 4-5 accounts making the exact same argument with no other contributions anywhere else is very suspect, especially considering the similar sentence structure you are using. Additionally, the obvious trolling occurring earlier on with similar single-purpose accounts that were blocked lends further evidence.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 22:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have other than your opinion on the matter? Timestamps don't prove anything because it's not uncommon for random people to make comments at the same time. Especially on a subject like this one which is somewhat controversial and a major news story right now. It seems like you're really trying hard to prevent people from commenting on that page. However, it's obviously apparent that I'm not the only person who feels the article should be deleted as there are other well established editors who have commented and have the same opinion. ChrysiAvgi (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Behaviorial evidence, the timing, and sentence structure. Given that the talk page has only been edited sporadically over a time period of many hours, the sudden appearance of several brand-new editors making the same argument with the same sentence structure is not particularly covert. On top of all that, your account was created an hour after User:Hoggnboss mentioned above. I have been an editor for almost five years, and I have never been shown to be wrong about a sockpuppet investigation, especially on an obvious case like this one. That I am "irrationally going after people that disagree with me" is ridiculous, given my calm and reasonable argument about the issue on the talk page, and is the same argument made by a blocked IP - User talk:79.102.20.77.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 22:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'd say
 * and
 * are a match.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (ran the check at the same time) I'm going to say very to say anything. CUs can disagree on the evidence and return different results. On that note, I will drop Salvio a note. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Talking to two other CUs right now about the results, it's a bit of a mess. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * After 3 CUs looking over the data, were still not quite sure whats going on, we are forwarding it up to the CU list for those CUs who could peak in and take a look. But needless to say it's going to be a few more days. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * After 3 CUs looking over the data, were still not quite sure whats going on, we are forwarding it up to the CU list for those CUs who could peak in and take a look. But needless to say it's going to be a few more days. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I also took a look at this and agree mostly with Salvio. Elockid  ( Talk ) 17:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I have seen, it is technically that ChrysiAvgi == Cumlord69, but Hoggnboss is technically ❌ to the other two, and it is certainly possible that these are meatpuppets. However, since neither has edited in almost three weeks, I am not inclined to take any action at this time. Closing with no prejudice with respect to any future cases. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)