Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Democratsunited/Archive

18 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

On 27 January 2011, Robertpercytodd made several edits to Rob Todd with edit comments making it clear he was the subject of the article. These edits were largely self-promotional. After I copy-edited the article and expanded it from available sources, WP:SPA removed statements about an extramarital relationship both Houston newspapers reported for Todd, as well as adding puffery, using edit comments very similar to Robertpercytodd's.  That user was then cited for having an inappropriate username. Almost immediately thereafter, SPA continued the editing pattern, again with similar edit comments:  When I removed the puffery and restored the sourced information, Deaftruth again removed it with similar edit comments. On a second attempt, Deaftruth again added puffery, this time making the article a WP:COATRACK, making unsupported claims of libel against the Houston Press in the edit comments. A conversation on WP:BLPN followed that spilled to User talk:Jimbo Wales. I made edits that satisfied Jimbo. Yesterday, a new SPA,, tried to eliminate the reference to the relationship and turn it into POV-pushing:  This was reverted by another editor. Today, another new SPA,, again tried to "sanitize" the article, making claims of libel, and this time even trying to remove all mention of Todd's former spouse Penny from the article:  This pattern of editing suggests to me that there may be a deliberate effort on the part of Todd or a supporter to whitewash the article and/or create the impression of widespread dissent with its contents. I request checkuser to establish whether or not there's a nexus between these SPAs, and appropriate action to prevent disruption if a nexus is found. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Today Pinkgurugal added a speedy deletion template to the article, with the desire to have the page removed altogether. Given the subject's notability and the recent attempts to remove sourced content, this seems like a continuation of previous efforts. I removed the speedy. 76.248.147.81 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that Pinkgurugal added the tag, which is for "a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith". The original author and initial substantial contributor was, a SPA that hasn't edited since September 2009.
 * Is it possible to get this page semiprotected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it? Or do I need to take that to AN/I? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . This case originally listed Robertpercytodd as the master, but that account is stale, so we can't run a CU against it. I'm almost willing to call the others per WP:DUCK, but I've endorse to double check. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ these two:



From a technical standpoint, these two are to both the above and to each other. It's not impossible, but my money is on them not being socks, though the behaviour needs to be considered:



And, of course, Robertpercytodd is stale. Courcelles 20:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 02:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Behavoiral says unlikely also, edit summary usage makes this clear. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  11:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)