Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Downholder40/Archive

08 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both of the users reverted me and  probably to circumvent 1RR on the I/P topic. Moreover they behavior is similar they have few edits don't want to participate in talk and interested in United Press International and United Press International Television News article. Also the Tfnews was created on the following day of Downholder40 creation. Shrike (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Checking the style of edit summaries makes this as obvious as they come: Both refer to the lead as TOP (in caps), both use the summary to describe what the edit does ("adds") rather than what they did (Added or "I added")
 * Downholder: 01:05, 22 August 2011 (diff | hist) United Press International ‎ (adds links inTOP)
 * Tfnews:    00:54, 20 September 2011 (diff | hist) Lewis J. Rachmil ‎ (adds additional TOP credits)

Both capitalize section headers where they made edits:
 * Downholder: 06:17, 24 July 2011 (diff | hist) United Press International ‎ (links Pulitzer Prize; improves syntax of Scripps sale sentence in DECLINE)
 * Tfnews:    13:42, 20 August 2011 (diff | hist) Marty Glickman ‎ (changes citation name to NOTES and moves it up slightly)

Also check out the edits made on United_Press_International back on July 5 & 6, when both accounts reverted an editor to add the same unsourced info to the article: DH: TF:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understood why CU is not useful here, but this quacks very loudly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Checked per the diffs, the topic overlap, and the name in relation to this, which in itself is a substantial conflict of interest. CheckUser is not particularly helpful here, and I think behaviour will have to be the deciding factor. My personal opinion is that I find it difficult to imagine that these accounts are unconnected. WilliamH (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional evidence; I have blocked and tagged Tfnews indefinitely as a sock per the huge quacking. WilliamH (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the master?In WP:ARBPIA area its usually indef block for both of them.--Shrike (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then take that up with WP:AE;we're done here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)