Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damwiki1/Archive

Report date May 18 2009, 19:15 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Philip Baird Shearer

Last night I put a 24 hour block on one party of an edit war for breach of WP:3R and as User:Damwiki1 is a new editor who had not been warned about WP:3R before, I placed a uw-3rr warning on the talk page of User:Damwiki1 at 23:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC).

At 00:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC) User:Damwiki1 placed a comment on the talk page of the article under discussion

At 00:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC) an new editor user:And heg maded his/her first second edit on Wikipedia "I have carefully reviewed Damwiki1's sources and he is correct. The article as it stands now is incorrect and I shall revise it accordingly."

At 00:25, 18 May 2009 user:And heg his/her second third edit and made the same reversal as User:Damwiki1 had made several times in the previous 24 hours.

I asked user:Damwiki1 " did you create a new user account called 'user:And heg', because it looks like a sock puppet account. If you did and you come clean now, the consequences will not be to sever as you are a new user and may not have been aware of the prohibition on using secondary accounts. If however you deny it and I have a check user performed which concludes that you did, then the repercussions will be more sever."

Both user:Damwiki1 and user:And heg deny that user:And heg is a sock puppet account. Please run a a check user to clear them of suspicion. --PBS (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that a new account could have been created to avoid the 3RR please check that user:And heg is not a sock puppet of user:Damwiki1 --PBS (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This whole process seems to me to be rather excessive, and nothing more than an attempt to intimidate. And heg (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by PBS (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Checkuser is not used to clear users of suspicion. —  Jake   Wartenberg  00:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on changes made above to RFCU reason. —  Jake   Wartenberg  19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Same ISP, same city, but different Internet connections. This could be a friend. -- Luk  talk 12:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That would explain the first edit by user:And heg on the 16 April which taken on its own does not look at all suspicious to me. --PBS (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that that the accounts are not sockpuppets, no further action is necessary. Icestorm815 •  Talk  18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Kurfürst

 * User:And heg begun editing Wikipedia in 16 April 2009, in the naval related HACS article, which is an article practically only edited by Damwiki1 in the past year. User:And heg remained inactive after this single edit for a month, when User:Damwiki1 become engaged in an edit war in the naval related King George V class battleship (1939) article in May 2009.


 * At 00:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC) User:And heg placed a supportive comment on the talk page of the article under discussion : "I have carefully reviewed Damwiki1's sources and he is correct. The article as it stands now is incorrect and I shall revise it accordingly."


 * At 00:25, 18 May 2009 user:And heg his/her second third edit and made the same reversal as User:Damwiki1 had made several times in the previous 24 hours.


 * The signs are suspicious for an Admin, and at the time User:Damwiki1 was investigated for sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations/Damwiki1/Archive


 * On 14 June 2009 an anon IP, 24.108.224.96 turns up, and removes the same source from the article that previously User:And heg and User:Damwiki1 removed, using the same arguements.


 * Afterwards, And heg remains inactive in articles, but as the debate in the King George V class battleship (1939), he reappers to support Damwiki1's POV in the same fashion at 02:43, 19 June 2009:, claiming the source should not be used because of "Undue weight"


 * Between 22 and 25 June 2009, Damwiki again removes the same source several times, arguing that its "Undue weight"


 * Half an hour later of Damwiki's edit, And Heg turns up again and puts the same quote from the same author out of the main text, into a footnote, along with arguements why it is wrong. and then supports Damwiki with the same arguements and sources as Damwiki used previously on the talk page. Following that, And heg than disappears from Wiki for 2 months completely.


 * On 9 August Damwiki now follows the same tactic of getting rid of unwanted sources via placing them into footnotes, and also 'debunking' them there: The editing style is strikingly similiar.


 * On the same day Damwiki makes another edit, using an anonym IP, giving himself away in the editorial comment: additional works reviewed...


 * In November 25, in the Battle of the Denmark Strait, an article closely related to the King George V class battleship (1939) article, User:Damwiki1 begun adding similiar edits as in the KGV article. Despite being completely inactive for 3 months, and never editing the said article before, it only took only 30 minutes for User:And heg to appear in the article, and restore User:Damwiki1's edits that have been reverted.


 * Then again User:And heg disappears for a month, not making any article edits, only to appear supporting User:Damwiki1's cause in December 2009 when one of his comparison articles between a US and UK battleship class was nominated for deletion, and eventually deleted with absolute support of just about editors. [] Otherwise, And heg makes no edits and remains passive for a long time.


 * 16 February 2010 User:And heg turned up again only to support User:Damwiki1's POV on, again on the discussion page of the King George V class battleship (1939) article:


 * 18 February 2010 User:Damwiki1 again starts to remove the same reference.  . After trying three times, possibly to circumvent 3RR suspected sockpuppet [[User:And heg] arrives on the scene on shortly aftewards, and removes the same reference..


 * 19 February 2010 User:And heg again turns up shortly after User:Damwiki1 ran out of 3RR and removes again the same parts only the latter editor seem to have problem and have tendentiously removing them from the article.

In summary the evidence of sockpuppetry:


 * same editing style,
 * always using the same arguements, same sources, set out to remove the same sources
 * User:And heg always appears shortly after User:Damwiki1, only seem to edit the same articles, and only seem to exist to support the main logins's POV on talk pages, or revert/remove when the main login reverts/remove.
 * User:And heg is largely inactive other than this supportive activity. During his whole wikipedia career during the last year was largely inactive, 3-4 real minor edits in total, limited to adding a few external links

Furthermore, the review of the User contribution pages by Damwiki1 and User contribution pages by And heg shows they only edit the same articles, and And heg is obviously not a real editor who actually edits Wikipedia otherwise. Kurfürst (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Kurfürst (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

they have been checked against each other in the past, see Sockpuppet investigations/Damwiki1/Archive. They came up as being in the same city, and the same ISP, but using different connections. As such this is more likely to be a case of friends/associates supporting each other on wiki (WP:MEAT), I suggest you pursue the matter at WP:AN/I or a similar venue. I'll move the case to "user reported cases" as I'd like to get a second opinion on this before it's closed. Thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 12:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Spitfire above after looking at the previous SPI case. As said, this may be simple WP:TAGTEAMing but it doesn't look like straight socking to me. –MuZemike 05:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)