Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dan Phiffer/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( originally filed under this user)

Two newly created accounts whose only edits are to the vector rollback RfC. They're both "signed" by a similar name as well. See and. Bestagon ⬡ 15:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To add, they both have a very similar style in their comments. Bestagon ⬡ 15:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Dan Phiffer is a related case. &mdash; Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull; contribs) 02:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting that this case was closed without action; I assume this should be too. &mdash; Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull; contribs) 15:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * These users were already checked, and CU evidence was weak (same geographic area, everything else seems different). I'm not persuaded to block these users based only on the signature of their single edit. again. MarioGom (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merged case from Sockpuppet investigations/DowlandFan. Spicy (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Over at WP:V22RFC2, these SPAs use similar language and on two occasions say they're James M (James M and JDM). Aaron Liu (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added "Fon E. Noel NFEBE", whose only edit has been this deletion of "few or no other edits" tags from some IPs, from a username ("Levaplevaplevap"), and, now that I look more carefully, also seems to have altered one of the comments (the final one in the link).--Æo (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Looking at the IPs only, none appear to be proxies (although I can't detect P2P VPNs), and only 198.115.84.241 and 108.26.222.171 geolocate in the same state as each other. as to DowlandFan and Babymodel89 only, as they both signed their posts manually (odd) with "— James M."/"– JD M" (Special:Diff/1135406875, Special:Diff/1135415217). &mdash; Mdaniels5757 (talk &bull; contribs) 01:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I supposed to defend myself against being a sockpuppet? As for being an SPA, I am not an experienced editor, but I might offer a point of reference that I do have some published engagement with Wikipedia through other means. See, for example: https://waxy.org/2005/06/automating_wiki/
 * Also: "You have 272 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." although I suppose you cannot verify that claim without being logged in as me.
 * I am listening, as I type this, to a lecture about Wikipedia. I share it with you as a gift: https://www.twitch.tv/screenwalks Dan Phiffer (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * First of all, User:Dan Phiffer has no technical connection or geographic match to the people I checked. The request was to compare DowlandFan and Babymodel89. While having different IPs, the two editors are in the same geographic area and use the same ISP, but have different version strings and could be using two different makes of computer. The common usage of 'James M.' to sign their posts is certainly unusual. So I can't declare them to be socks of one another purely on CU evidence. The best statement about their connection is . The two checked editprs did not also edit logged out. I can't comment on IPs, and don't see the need to run checks on a bunch of people who have only a single edit apiece.


 * Certainly the people listed above seem to be single-purpose accounts. I am reminded of the template sometimes used in AfD discussions, spa, which says'[this user] has made few or no other edits outside this topic'. If we are going to make a decision on which skin to use for Wikipedia you would imagine that the votes of regular contributors ought to be weighed more heavily than those who showed up to cast a vote within their first four edits. Obviously this is just a personal opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking at the styles of signatures, Babymodel89 and DowlandFan are a stronger behavioral match than others in the list. But without a good CU match, and with so low activity, I think it's better to tag these !votes with spa and move on. Closing without action. MarioGom (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This case is now closed. The quick summary is that technical and behavioral evidence did not suggest that you are a sockpuppet. Best, MarioGom (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)