Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DougsTech/Archive

Report date April 5 2009, 01:47 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This user has recently been disruptive at RFA and appears to have quite a precocious edit history, using automated tools from day one. This makes me very suspicious as to if this user is indeed a sockpuppet. Ipatrol (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Ipatrol (talk)

The user here grandiosely claimed at a requests for permissions that they could just get a new account and get rollback on it if rollback was not granted on his account.
 * Wow, thats all the evidence you have? Read WP:SOCK before adding something like that. And I only have 1 account, so that is not gonna work anyhow. DougsTech (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * I take this as a personal attack by Ipatrol. Mere suspicion does NOT justify a Sockpuppet investigation. DougsTech (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Urge CUs to reject this immediately, no evidence presented, ipatrol is just fishing. // roux   01:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Roux. "The evidence needs to be quite strong, not just a vague belief or assumption."  There is no evidence that multiple accounts are being used abusively.  And there is no reason for the "scarlet letter" to deface the User page, particularly given the lack of evidence here.  Kablammo (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Roux and Kablammo. There is not sufficient evidence, and no sock accounts mentioned.  Until   It   Sleeps   03:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous accusation. No evidence has been provided, nor has a suspected sock. Simply because an editor makes pointy, repeated edits on RFAs that just about nobody agrees with doesn't mean that editor is a sockpuppet. Where would anyone even get that idea? Tim  meh  !  03:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this SPI was made in bad faith. I think we all agree that DougsTech's voting at RFA is disruptive, but character assassination is not the answer. I agree with closing the case if no further evidence is provided in 24 hours. Firestorm  Talk 04:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * You are going to need to provide better evidence than just that he used automated tools on his first day, while that does create a suspicion it does not justify a CheckUser being ran. Remember . (Struck per ) Tiptoety  talk 01:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussed with ipatrol, if evidence and socks are not provided in the next 24 hours, the case will be closed. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 02:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions


 * 1/2 hour till 00:00 UTC, no evidence that Ipatrol indeed has any evidence. If Ipatrol does find some, s/he is most welcome to talk to me about it, and I will look at re-opening the case depending on its quality and accuracy. I would also suggest that next time round, Ipatrol does not open a SPI until suspected socks can be provided, as there is nothing actionable on the case without any socks or evidence to compare to each other. Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 23:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 5 2009, 02:12 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Mythdon

— Mythdon  t / c  02:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DougsTech opposes users with "too many administrators currently" (examples:  )
 * The suspected sockpuppet (Myownusername) recently participated in an RfA using similar phrasing ("Much too many admins lately"). Here's the diff.
 * It is noted that there was a proposal of a topic ban on DougsTech from participating in RfA's which reached no consensus. Despite not reaching consensus, DougsTech has not participated in an RfA since the discussion closure. A look through the contributions of DougsTech will answer this.
 * The timing of of which Myownusername commented in the RfA is only about three days long after the account was created (May 2, 2009).


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by — Mythdon  t / c  02:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * , blocked already. -- Luk  talk (lucasbfr) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Blocked.  Syn  ergy 02:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by NuclearWarfare
Both users started out in much the same ways, reverting mass amounts of vandalism from the instant that they created their accounts. But this edit seals the deal for me. A quick google search of 'DougsTech' seems to indicate that DougsTech is from Alabama. The oppose is a pretty standard DougsTech oppose. NW ( Talk ) 01:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
 * I didn't do anything wrong. Thanks! White Trillium (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * I'm unsure. The RFA opposes by White Trillium I really am not able to confirm from both users' contribs. After that, he continued to rv vandalism. So I don't know. Andewz111 (typo intended) 03:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Confirmed when I searched more. Andewz111  (typo intended) 03:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I know of DT, that edit is the final nail in the coffin. If I was a clerk, I would endorse this case.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 03:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you did, DT. Ban evasion is wrong. Bye.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
DougsTech is. Is there any non-stale DougsTech socks around? Tim Song (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * White Trillium is a suspected sock, that's why the case has been opened. I, like others, am very suspicious but lack sufficient evidence to block. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * - there would be nothing to compare WT to, CU is useless here. Tim Song (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

, blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to a checkuser, White Trillium is editing from a residential IP on the West Coast. NW ( Talk ) 15:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Has there ever been a CU run on DT? He could just be from Alabama, not living there right now. Şłџğģő  16:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Someone needs to go over the behavioral evidence in a bit more detail here - if the RfA !vote is the only thing it's certainly worth keeping an eye on but definitely not enough to block in the face of the CU result. I had only 20 hours of sleep in the past 5 days, so I'm not going to review it now; I've no objection to someone unblocking as they see fit. Tim Song (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of connection to DougsTech, along with  are socks of . Brandon (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that settles things. Sockpuppet investigations/South Bay has the new results, and I think we can archive this now. NW ( Talk ) 21:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)