Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DataDrivenOne/Archive

08 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

DataDrivenOne was created 23:48, 7 April 2014, and Mathematicalist 01:41, 8 April 2014. Three of Mathematicalist's edits have been removing the notability tag on the article DataDrivenOne created. Both users mention the International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking, which according to www.unlv.edu had fewer than 500 attendants in 2013. Both believe in a conspiracy to suppress a baccarat strategy the Zuan Xin article is promoting  (see "embargoed by the Chinese language media around the world")  (see "worldwide blackout of information"). Blackguard 06:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Thought this was worth noting: following the creation of this sockpuppet investigation, Mathematicalist left a rather alarming rant on Blackguard's user page (which Blackguard then moved to his talk page). I wouldn't go so far to construe it as a serious threat, but boy it sure comes close. - Iago Qnsi  00:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I'll be. It looks like I wasn't alone in finding the conduct of these two suspicious. Hello there. Is there a precedent for situations like this? Do we need to merge the two reports somehow? - Vianello (Talk) 02:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, since someone besides me has raised a report, and a CU has made an assessment, I feel pretty comfortable in making an administrative call on this. I try to avoid directly acting on things no one else has reported unless they're REALLY flagrant/damaging, but I think the report by a second party makes me sufficiently uninvolved to make this call. - Vianello (Talk) 02:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
All accounts blocked and tagged. - Vianello (Talk) 02:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * and are  the same user.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  19:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

10 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Noticed this while examining an edit war at Zuan Xin. The following oddities stuck out to me: Both editors began editing on the same day. Their first edits were both to the same article. The suspected sockmaster's second edit was to create the aforementioned article, and the suspected sockpuppet's second edit, a few minutes later, was to comment on it, then open up a complimentary talk page. Both users began reverting edits made by User:IagoQnsi, who placed maintenance tags on the article. Though the suspected sockpuppet did edit on two other articles, they continued to edit on this article and the baccarat article, as well as an article on blackjack. Both users have demonstrated characteristics in common, such as insisting that others they revert "study" the references (example 1, example 2), as well as baselessly accusing those they are in dispute with of being on the payroll of an unspecified casino organization (example 1, example 2, example 3). The suspected sockpuppet has also plugged the individual mentioned in the suspected sockmaster's new article on other articles. - Vianello (Talk) 02:34, 10 April 2014 (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
Technically redundant report being included for completeness. - Vianello (Talk) 02:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

10 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

One more sockpuppet for DataDrivenOne. Girl888999888 was created today, and his second edit was removing the PROD template from DataDrivenOne's article. Same Eadington / Risk Taking conference, same passive aggressive "not for Wikipedia" mea culpa, same delusions of notability. Blackguard 16:38, 10 April 2014 (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

 * ❌ Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As you can see from my unfortunately timed redundant report below (I promise to stop doing this), I think, CU aside, that the behavioral evidence here is pretty brazenly obvious, right down to the literally identical edit summaries. Blocking, tagging and closing. - Vianello (Talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

11 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

After the suspected sockmaster was told an unblock for the previous SPI case was unlikely (barring admitting to it and agreeing to cooperate - see talk page), they stopped editing, and this user materialized. Bee-lined straight to the same article, promptly removed the maintenance templates (again) and the PROD notice, and left me a notice (using the same edit summary, "Very minor edit", repeatedly used similarly or verbatim by the suspected sockmaster). Employs the same formal, polite speech used by the suspected sockmaster in conversation on their talk page, as well as being immediately aware of the other editors who had altered the article in question, who they summarize as "friends" who this user has told not to continue using Wikipedia. (Taken at 100% face value I think that would qualify as meatpuppetry, but I'm very confident that isn't the case here.) If this article is deleted, I plan to monitor it for recreation and WP:SALT if necessary. I do at least give this editor credit for their civility and politeness on 2/3 of their (probable, IMO) accounts. - Vianello (Talk) 01:38, 11 April 2014 (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

 * Oh, for Pete's sake. I did it again. I'm leaving my own report here just for the sake of having the additional perspective/diffs. Boy, I should start checking here first if this happens again, though. My fellow editors are a lot faster on this than I am! Closing this redundant section. - Vianello (Talk) 01:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)