Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cybolton/Archive

15 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

user:Cybolton First edit: 1:39, 16 June 2013 was to  create  his user page

User:TechatologyOn 12:35, 4 July 2013 starts reviewing articles at  AfC

First edit : 13:43, 16 June 2013‎ was to  create his user page  -  two hours after Cybolton

On 11:59, 3 July 2013 his 7th  edit  is to  award Cybolton  a barnstar

His 13th edit is a page move

By 6 July  he begins concentrating  in  earnest  on  AfC.

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton on  19:27, 5 July 2013 :, 03:59, 6 July 2013 declines one on 04:07, 6 July 2013 Thanks Cybolton 19:07, 6 July 2013 for good work

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton 1:30, 6 July 2013

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton 9:56, 12 July 2013

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton 20:36, 12 July 2013

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton within the same minute 20:36, 12 July 2013

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton 13:34, 14 July 2013

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton 20:35, 14 July 2013

Both use a similar font  and large size , and 

Stalk tool shows articles that both  users have edited. As one example, this edit history  shows a close shared interest, while this history  shows shared interest  within  a minute of page creation.

These users seem to  be sitting  ducks and I am  tempted to  block  them  summarily. However, I'm asking  for a CU because in  the light  of User:Techatology's experience, there may  be other multiple accounts and/or sleepers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * If this is a sock-puppet case, it's a surprising one. Why bother to put articles through Afc and approve them?  Why not just create the articles directly?  Even if these are both sock puppets of a banned user, creating an extra sock to do an unnecessary job just attracted attention. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't  think  it's so  unusual. To  create a sock  account  to  approve one's own submissions is a pretty  logical  ploy. Especially  when the one editor is obviously hoping to  get noticed for their 'good work' at  AfC -  that's why  I  think  they  are attracting  attention.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kudpung, it could well be an attempt to legitimize a sock by pushing an article through the AFC process. Submitters get much more scrutiny than reviewers there normally.  Additionally, the articles accepted are not too bad.  Certainly better than 75% if what goes through AFC on a daily basis.  Before blocking, a discussion with the user(s) would be appropriate.  I'd be interested to see the motivation for the editing pattern here. Is it a lack of experience or are they trying to evade review and participation by other editors?  Thought looking at the body of articles handled by these two accounts, there is a clear nationalistic theme and a military one at that.  These two accounts are really interested in seeing an expansion to the number of articles on the military of the Philippines.  If it really is two editors working in very close cooperation, the AFC process should be explained to them and let it go.  If it's one person editing with multiple accounts, block 'em.--RadioFan (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There are a number of bizarre coincidences as mentioned by Kudpung, especially with regards to the barnstar and userpage creation times. However, it might also just be a fluke and an active AFC editor who found someone whose edits don't need as much review. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ along with
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have indeffed user:Cybolton  and user:Techatology  and also user:202.57.49.110 for one week (only  edit  was a barnstar for Cybolton). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

20 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Account created after Cybolton blocked and contains almost all articles created or edited by Cybolton and puppets. I am One of Many (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2013 (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

 * See below. WilliamH (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

21 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

A new editor who out of the blue creates a beautiful userpage that happens to look very similar to the known sockpuppetteer Cybolton. Marks all his edits as minor, just as Cybolton did with his edits. Both have the same interests. And on top of all, after flagging AFP Modernization Act, Siryuseditor came to the rescue and removed the templates stating that the article was perfectly okay.

The quacking is that loud, that a check on sleepers seems useful. The Banner talk 03:10, 21 July 2013 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Very and for all extents and purposes ✅. WilliamH (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * user:Siryuseditor indeffed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing.