Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DEUTSCHBLUT/Archive

20 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This brand-new account has been threatening me here and here with "username and IP bans" and on my talk page, indicates they are likely a sock. I do not know who they are, only that they were previously using the IP I list above, Ogress 23:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

take this with a grain of salt, because I haven’t used that particular Twinkle function myself, but from looking at the ARV panel I think all you need do, when reporting IPs, is not to check the box requesting CU evidence. (The default seems to be unchecked, but your TW preferences may have changed it.) If you‘re sure the box was unchecked in this case, and the CU request was entered anyway, it may be worth reporting to the TW developers as some kind of bug or incompatibility.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  23:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! I'll check that out. I think I didn't see it because I tried to file a sockpuppet, but without a sockmaster entered, it prompted "file as MASTER?" and finally I gave in and clicked FINEEEE WHATEVER. Ogress 02:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've declined the CU request. We rarely publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your replies. I used the AVN option from the drop menu, which autoformats Sock reports. Is there a separate template I should substitute for the bog-standard one after filing assuming in the future (god forbid but probably) I have to file a socking report that does not request IP? Or is Bbb23's reply simply routine since there's no sock issue here (as I could not locate any other socks)?
 * You have to find the sockmaster and report it. Being "likely a sock" is not enough.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking at cross purposes. In my view, you were alleging that the IP was likely the same person as DEUTSCHBLUT. You included some evidence supporting that. I think you could have done a better job, but I don't agree with that you didn't identify a sock master. As for my decline, there's nothing wrong with your specifying an IP in a report. However, if the only accounts you list as puppets are IPs, you shouldn't request a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Sorry about the lack of evidence, I mostly line-edit, I'm a wikijanitor and I mostly am unfamiliar with this process (although I have filed cases in the past so I guess I should have remembered).


 * My thinking: I thought it was obvious the two are the same, but also thought moving from an IP to a registered account was not wrong. Rather, the issue is that they are an undetermined sock. I couldn't find other accounts but they are replying like a sock.


 * Anyway, practically speaking, in the future, do I file IP socks using plain instead of the template provided by the AVN menu in Twinkle?
 * I'm not familiar with opening SPIs with Twinkle.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)