Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deering 50/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I (mostly but not entirely) reverted this editor's good faith edits on Dartford Crossing as I felt they were against consensus. Things then got off to a ropey start and broke down quickly from there. I attempted to patch things over, emphasising I understood they were definitely trying to improve the encyclopedia, and was surprised to find them use Krusty Kristovsky's account, and then quickly change it. A look through the main account shows previous evidence of incivility and reverting a warning message with the summary "hypocrite" (primarily over being upset about Traingate being sent to AfD). I don't think we need a checkuser, the circumstancial evidence for sockpuppetry is obvious enough in my view (ie: using the "wrong" account to write a message and fixing the signature to the "right" account four minutes later). I am far too WP:INVOLVED to block directly, so an uninvolved admin needs to look at this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:19, 18 October 2016 (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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * I've blocked all accounts without tags. The oldest account is Deering 50, and a clerk should probably move the case to that account. However, I do not want tags on the accounts. In addition, the immediate revocation of Talk page access and disabling of e-mail access was intentional.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the numerous threads on article talk pages? For example, unless a genuine third party comes along to agree with this user on Dispute resolution noticeboard, that thread can probably be closed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like you need my help to resolve that. Your note at DRN seems reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all accounts without tags. The oldest account is Deering 50, and a clerk should probably move the case to that account. However, I do not want tags on the accounts. In addition, the immediate revocation of Talk page access and disabling of e-mail access was intentional.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the numerous threads on article talk pages? For example, unless a genuine third party comes along to agree with this user on Dispute resolution noticeboard, that thread can probably be closed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like you need my help to resolve that. Your note at DRN seems reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all accounts without tags. The oldest account is Deering 50, and a clerk should probably move the case to that account. However, I do not want tags on the accounts. In addition, the immediate revocation of Talk page access and disabling of e-mail access was intentional.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the numerous threads on article talk pages? For example, unless a genuine third party comes along to agree with this user on Dispute resolution noticeboard, that thread can probably be closed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like you need my help to resolve that. Your note at DRN seems reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all accounts without tags. The oldest account is Deering 50, and a clerk should probably move the case to that account. However, I do not want tags on the accounts. In addition, the immediate revocation of Talk page access and disabling of e-mail access was intentional.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the numerous threads on article talk pages? For example, unless a genuine third party comes along to agree with this user on Dispute resolution noticeboard, that thread can probably be closed. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like you need my help to resolve that. Your note at DRN seems reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked all accounts without tags. The oldest account is Deering 50, and a clerk should probably move the case to that account. However, I do not want tags on the accounts. In addition, the immediate revocation of Talk page access and disabling of e-mail access was intentional.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the numerous threads on article talk pages? For example, unless a genuine third party comes along to agree with this user on Dispute resolution noticeboard, that thread can probably be closed. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like you need my help to resolve that. Your note at DRN seems reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the numerous threads on article talk pages? For example, unless a genuine third party comes along to agree with this user on Dispute resolution noticeboard, that thread can probably be closed. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like you need my help to resolve that. Your note at DRN seems reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Closing. GABgab 18:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)