Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Econ cleanup prof/Archive

16 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All four accounts were created on August 12 and 13. All of the accounts edited Comparative advantage, making major changes to the article after it had been quiet for two months. One of NotYetAnotherEconomist's first edits was to create Econ Cleanup Prof's talk page here. None of the accounts except NotYetAnotherEconomist has edited anything except that article (not counting Econ Cleanup Prof's user page or the article talk page). Notice here how Econ Cleanup Prof adds to NotYetAnotherEconomists's arguments on the article talk page.

NotYetAnotherEconomist is obviously not a newbie, having already engaged in several AfDs, arguments on talk pages about project banners, arguments with administrators and other experienced editors, calling "stupid" (here is the second time they did so). None of that ties the account to the other accounts; it just shows it's not a new user. Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2014 (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

 * All accounts named here are technically ❌ in all ways, including geographically. Consider whether there may have been some external discussion about this article that has attracted specialists in the subject area; remember such discussion could be in a non-free journal or non-public mailing list.  Risker (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems likely there there might be meatpuppetry here, it is very interesting that NotYetAnotherEconomist didn't link with any other accounts we might need to keep an eye on them and see if anything comes up. From here I'm not sure what to do, I don't even think that protecting the article is a viable solution. Any other ideas? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I intentionally didn't clerk this after the CU. I suppose I would reluctantly close the SPI with no action. If there's significant disruption, the user may be sanctioned independently. My biggest concern is the kind of medium disruption that Wikipedia doesn't handle well, but, like you, I have no clever solution to offer.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just have to keep an eye on it. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)