Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deano.123/Archive

08 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I noticed that an article that's currently up for deletion has had several single purpose accounts come on to edit the article. One of the editors had their first edit after a conflict of interest notice was posted on the talk page of Deano.123. . One of the editors had removed the AfD tags, which I restored. I have left a comment about conflicts of interest on the pages of the suspected sockpuppets. I don't think that they generally have mischief in mind, but having multiple editors suddenly appear with only edits to Dean Williams (Author & Actor) is pretty suspicious and I'd like to see if they are sockpuppets. I do acknowledge that there's the possibility of them being meatpuppets as well and that they might have come on with good intentions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79 Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I did feel somewhat bad about putting in an investigation since they didn't seem to be doing anything than editing the same page, but I was worried that if these are all the same account or if they are meatpuppeting, that it could lead to abuse.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

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

 * In general, these accounts seem to be playing by the rules; I do not see any evidence of slanting the AFD, for example. However, one person spreading edits among accounts is not an unreasonable suspicion here, and I suggest a strong reminder that it's one account per editor, and that new people coming forward for the same purpose is also considered in the same light as sockpuppetry. WilliamH (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Odd. But this seems to take care of itself: the accounts haven't edited in three days, article is likely going to be deleted, and they didn't do anything aggressive to prevent that, so I'm going to close this. If the situation becomes problematic again please do not hesitate to reopen -- like WilliamH said, talking to them about the concern would then probably be the first step. Amalthea  19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)