Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emptyvee/Archive

16 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

MO is to spam with some trivial edits thrown in to fly under the spam radar. Quacks, but please check for sleepers. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 12:08, 16 April 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

 * It is highly suspicious that ten brand-new editors would all insert references to the same spammy web site. On the other hand, none of these accounts has been blocked, or even warned, and it doesn't look like any particular article is being hit more than once.  On the third hand, this really does look like a single editor using multiple socks to evade the attention he would surely get by doing this same spam stunt to a dozen articles under a single account.  Going by the spirit of the law, I'd say this is most likely disruptive editing by a single user using multiple accounts — so it does fall under the umbrella of sockpuppetry — and I'm inclined to indef-block the socks and give a final warning to the first account to stop spamming and stop socking (then block him if he does it again).  Although the evidence so far seems to pass the duck test, I think a CU check is still in order, in case this person has set up other socks (including possible sleepers) that haven't come to light yet.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * - Check for other socks / sleepers, per my comments above. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Followup: I've warned each of these accounts, on their talk page, about the spamming / socking issue. I'm not sure which of these accounts is the "master" — the first edit appears to have been done by Emptyvee, not Catsornotcats.  For that matter, the most recent edit so far amongst this group was on March 23 (by Acington), so it's conceivable that the person responsible has already become bored and won't be back.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, Acington, Pieiesudomine, Brethy, Reginaissance, Truthable, Catsornotcats, Braxtonfamilyvalues, Emptyvee are a ✅ match to each other and Jayassbach, Applysauce are a ✅ match to each other and almost ✅ to the other bunch. Furthermore, technically speaking, Hillarpa and Sheepshow are also a match, but before blocking please make sure there is enough behavioural evidence to support a block. Finally, I am incapable of blacklisting the site, so I'll let someone else do it...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Listed accounts blocked and tagged as Emptyvee, which is the oldest account. This report should be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Emptyvee accordingly. Not seeing the behavioural connection to and, and neither has been adding the objectionable link, so I've left them unblocked. The link has been added to the blacklist. Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)