Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr. Blofeld/Archive

28 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I believe that User:Dr. Blofeld is the sock master of User:Tibetan Prayer and is using Tibetan Prayer in violation of policies. Their actions this morning led me to question this and after looking closer it becomes evident that it is a sockpuppet. I was looking at random articles this morning and came across Catholic Secular Forum which had been created by Dr. Blofield. It looked like this when I found it. There was no assertion of significance in that article, so I tagged it with db-a7 and notified Dr Blofield. They came in and made some updates and then Tibetan Prayer came behind and removed the speedy with a comment "not a speedy", a valid comment at that time. I looked at Tibetan Prayer's edits and they do not edit much. This was the first edit since 27 December 2012. At that time they showed up and removed a speedy deletion template from an article that had been created by Dr Blofield. So I decided to look even closer.
 * Wenvoe Castle Golf Club created by Dr Blofield, Tibetan Prayer first edit to article is removal of speedy deletion tag.
 * Korea Racing Authority Equine Museum created by Dr Blofield, Tibetan Prayer only edit to article is removal of speedy deletion tag.
 * Escuela de sirenas y tiburones created by Dr Blofield, Tibetan Prayer only edit to article is removal of speedy deletion tag.
 * Aurelie Fanchette created by Dr Blofield, Tibetan Prayer first edit to article is removal of speedy deletion tag

Tibetan Prayer always shows up from abcenses when Dr Blofield's articles are nominated for deletion. 24.126.38.235 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Dr. Blofeld makes it clear on his userpage that he is Tibetan Prayer, so there is no question of "socking".-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Not as inappropriate as the original speedy tagging in the first place. If a silly bot didn't insist on maintaining unwarranted tags for established editors who try to remove them I'd not need to do it, so it is a fault of policy not me. Speedy tags are a threat to content and deleting admins often don't really check them. Change the bot coding to allow established editors to remove sppedy tags slopped on by ip's and I'd never need to do this. An IP could speedy tag tens of my articles and it could be a full hour before anybody takes action and reverts them. It is a threat to the security of content which needs to be looked into, I've said this before.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do here, that has always been a disclosed alternate account, in no way WP:ILLEGIT. Amalthea  21:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ... but I have reminded Dr. Blofeld to not remove SD tags from articles he created, you are certainly right 24.126.38.235 that this is not appropriate -- particularly since he only seems to reactivate the Tibetan account to remove SD tags ... :(( Amalthea  22:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then change the policy, but don't evade it -- at the moment it has no "established editor" clause, and if one is deleted inappropriately you know how to get the content back. You've only done that with five articles since June 2011, I don't think enduring that risk for 2.5 articles per year is asking too much. Amalthea  22:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "You've only done that with five articles since June 2011". That's because I almost always wait for another editor to remove the speedy tag. Otherwise the figure would be nearer 20 a year. Only very occasionally do I remove it myself, anyway.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

25 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User Dr. Blofeld self-redirected his talk page to user Tibetan Prayer:. At the same time, he/she bid adieu to some people he/she knew on the forum:. This guy is now editing with the two accounts the Paris article:. He/she has rewritten most of the Paris article in one month, with disregard for criticism on the talk page. Version of the article a month ago:. And now:. Very fishy behavior overall, and disruptive for other editors. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2013 (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

 * Closed. When someone has redirected his user talk page to another account's, that's not exactly trying to hide. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A report was filed about this already, please check before filing next time. Rschen7754 20:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)