Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dek0001/Archive

04 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The behaviour of the anon IPs and the three accounts are very similar and the editing summary is also similar on Sport in Australia and Sports in the United States (would be a long list if I was to add the diffs). The two IPs are from different ISPs but are from the same region, though the checkuser is IMO needed to make sure there is no sleepers. Bidgee (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2012 (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

 * ✅ ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since one of the socks called my attention back to this case by blanking it, I have gone ahead and blocked all three accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The IPs have been blocked one month by . De728631 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

11 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Behaviour is the same as the main account with the edits they make relating to sport and the edit summaries (Dek0001, 144.132.28.156, Accurateline33, OntheRoad222). This is a clear duck. Bidgee (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added OntheRoad222 which started editing just within hours of the IP making the below comment which I find hard to believe that they keep losing the passwords due to the latest account and seems more like gaming the system. Bidgee (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I am user's Dek001 and AccurateLine33, I forgot the password to my accounts so I created a new one. I have done nothing wrong, I edited a page on Sydney Australia then decide to create a new account because I forgot the passwords to my old accounts. I did nothing wrong and if you look at what I have done and what is being claimed it shows the same thing.--144.132.28.156 (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have recently created a account and have not participated in Sock Puppetry. I have only edit a few pages including Sydney Australia and have not tryed to fool any other user's.--OntheRoad222 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the definition of WP:SOCK is "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose..." and all Dek0001 has done is make the edit history of a bunch of Australia-related pages more convoluted. Might I ask, Dek0001, why you made a separate edit for every word you changed? If you're new to Wikipedia, just know that it makes it extremely difficult for other editors to review your work. Might I also ask why you felt the need to create several usernames rather than use your IP? Are there other usernames you've created? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All 5 accounts (aka including the ones in the archive) are ✅. . -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also blocked 203.24.110.83 from the archives (3 months) which just resumed editing. Closing.

16 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The areas the accounts and IPs are editing (Australian sport), the editing style and edit summaries follow the very same pattern and behaviour as Dek0001 (and past socks). Could be possible that the user has sleepers that have yet to edit, in case the other accounts are blocked. Bidgee (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment: This looks like a WP:DUCK to me. This is the same language as the previously blocked user over similar accusations of POV pushing. --LauraHale (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - For sleeper check, but Dek0001 is as are all known socks. Rschen7754 04:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A cursory glance at edit summaries suggests an obvious overlap, but in future please include diffs to support your case, as the burden to retrieve/establish your argument is not on clerks and CheckUsers.
 * SSBreak is a likely and for all extents and purposes ✅ match to the master.
 * Afgtnk is ostensibly ❌; behaviour will have to be the deciding factor.
 * As per usual, no comment on the given IP addresses.
 * A range used by Dek0001 and his socks has been blocked.
 * WilliamH (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Master indef'd, the confirmed sock indef'd. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)