Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dauster/Archive

09 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Within 2 hours of the opening of Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha), an articl created by editor Dauster, 4 IPs and a new account all arrived to !vote keep (except one, who simply praised it on the talk page). The wording of the posts is similar, as is the peculiar way they !voted, ie "Comment:Keep". Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We have more, see and . I really would like a CU on these as I don't want any suspicion of being unfair, and if Dauster is socking some action should be taken against him. If he's not, his name should be cleared. And just noticed on the talk page,, their only edit. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * User:Caswellm was created the same day the AFD started, and their first and only edit was to the AFD to vote keep.


 * All the IPs edited exclusively the AFD itself or created an associated talk page. Seems pretty clear to me, I don't think CU is really necessary here. These are single purpose accounts. Regards, MacMedtalk stalk 03:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just doing name resolution on the IPs above shows they're from Boston MA, Philadelphia PA, and Washington DC. This makes me think that they're not sockpupets, (or at least not all) however it's obvious that blatant WP:CANVAS is occurring. --Bachrach44 (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To repeat something I told Dougweller elsewhere: I first ran into this AfD from a notice posted on the WikiProject:Judaism Bulletin Board. (Actually, it was Dougweller's posting.) I could easily envision others like me finding that notice, being concerned, being moved to comment themselves and even getting their friends involved. If these are inexperienced Wikipedia users–normally only look in to read from time to time–this might well have been the only thing that ever motivated them to edit anything, and they might well have copied other !votes, not knowing any differently (and not knowing that would be considered suspicious behavior). I would actually take creation of the associated talk page as evidence of that–they didn't know what they were supposed to do.
 * I'm not an expert–neither on the parallel wording nor on the prompt response to the opening of the AfD. But assuming Dauster passes CU, I think everyone had better be very careful in pressing accusations of meatpuppetry or canvassing. Look at it this way: Any traditional Jew who is not a Wikipedia purist (and some who are) would !vote to Keep.  That's not canvassing, that's a community of shared interests.  StevenJ81 (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The IPs don't line up, different areas, only one edit for the named accounts. These are SPAs, maybe meatpuppetish, and as such should be treated as one vote at the AFD. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can point the closing admin to this page, and again, treat as one vote, but I'm hesitant to block for meatpuppetry either, and I think StevenJ81 has explained it fairly well.  I don't see any intentional abuse, just a group reaction.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)