Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dyhcccbb/Archive

27 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Similar user name concepts. Both users have created memorial name redirects to existing airport articles. One for Susan B. Anthony International Airport and the other for Martin Luther King Jr. International Airport, and neither destination article supports those names for those airports. &#124; Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  11:22, 27 January 2016 (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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * With the exception of the first two accounts, . I've blocked the first two accounts but without tags until this is sorted out as, depending on the conclusion of the behavioral analysis, the master may change.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All except Fduhggfj made just one edit each, so it is very hard to make any behavioral analysis. There is nothing WP:ILLEGIT in their edits neither, so I think we should not block any more accounts. I'm not even sure why you blocked both Dyhcccbb and Gddgjhbyh? They created similar redirects, but does that person really deserve indefinite block for that?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your decision about the other accounts. If the master of the two accounts was a longer-standing editor and had made enough constructive edits, I wouldn't have indeffed them. But when two accounts are created within minutes of each other, and the person's only two contributions are disruptive, I see no benefit to the project to allow the person to continue editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the first two accounts, . I've blocked the first two accounts but without tags until this is sorted out as, depending on the conclusion of the behavioral analysis, the master may change.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All except Fduhggfj made just one edit each, so it is very hard to make any behavioral analysis. There is nothing WP:ILLEGIT in their edits neither, so I think we should not block any more accounts. I'm not even sure why you blocked both Dyhcccbb and Gddgjhbyh? They created similar redirects, but does that person really deserve indefinite block for that?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your decision about the other accounts. If the master of the two accounts was a longer-standing editor and had made enough constructive edits, I wouldn't have indeffed them. But when two accounts are created within minutes of each other, and the person's only two contributions are disruptive, I see no benefit to the project to allow the person to continue editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All except Fduhggfj made just one edit each, so it is very hard to make any behavioral analysis. There is nothing WP:ILLEGIT in their edits neither, so I think we should not block any more accounts. I'm not even sure why you blocked both Dyhcccbb and Gddgjhbyh? They created similar redirects, but does that person really deserve indefinite block for that?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your decision about the other accounts. If the master of the two accounts was a longer-standing editor and had made enough constructive edits, I wouldn't have indeffed them. But when two accounts are created within minutes of each other, and the person's only two contributions are disruptive, I see no benefit to the project to allow the person to continue editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Tagging and closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)