Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dinkchink/Archive

30 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I came across this as a bot came across Dinkchink as a possible username violation.

I think that Dinkchink may be a sock of Poopybobfart. The account seems to have been created just as Poopybobfart was blocked. Plus the only edit outside of userspace Dinkchink has made is to Poopybobfart's page. It's also similar to an edit that Poppybobfart made to another banned users page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:123abcwiki&diff=prev&oldid=552786472 in that both vandalise and are related to templates on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Poopybobfart&diff=prev&oldid=552789468.

Requesting Checkuser as Poopybobfart also made edits to other banned users pages, I'm wondering if they're all related. 5 albert square (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I suspect they may also be and, probably the same as , and I suspect quite a few others, including  and. -- The Anome (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding for it's WP:DUCK behavior. Legoktm (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ are No sleepers. Others mentioned above are stale so I can't make a connection, but it doesn't really matter anyway. I'd recommend to RBI. Amalthea 11:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A rangeblock has been applied, but for now it's just WP:RBI and protect targets (like this very page). Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)