Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erfurt150/Archive

Evidence submitted by Uncle Milty
Seem to be targeting the edits of [User:Gabhala] for some reason. &#124; Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
This apparent targetting of my edits follows an exchange with another user (Catfish Jim and the soapdish) regarding our suspicions of a much bigger and ongoing case of suspected sockpuppetry at Talk:Celts. I had aired my suspicions at the Celts talk page, and mentioned that since it was a talk page, I wasn't sure it was worth instigating an investigation.

Catfish Jim and the soapdish mentioned to me that someone had been reverting his edits in a manner similar to the users mentioned above. On the basis that we felt it was likely that the same user was behind the disruptions to Catfish Jim's edits as was operating the puppets on the Celts talk page, I decided to start compiling the evidence and request an investigation.

Considering that the targetting of my edits began after this discussion seems to suggest that perhaps my suspicions are indeed correct.

If it is useful to this investigation, I can provide information and evidence to support my suspicions. Gabhala (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added the users who were reverting my edits in a similar manner. The only common factor between Gabhala and myself are that we both edit on the Celts talk page, suggesting that the disgruntled user behind these socks is also active there. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is confusing to me, all I have to add is, do you think User:Dogfish Jim and the Dixoap is also related?  —  Soap  —  23:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Difficult to say... I'm not sure what was going on there. I'm 95% sure the puppet-master here is User:Sleeping water, who I managed to upset by placing warning templates on his talk page for his disruptive editing on Celts. Gabhala may be able to add some more. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've edited my original post above, in an attempt to make it more readable. I have a list of ten other usernames that I believe may be sockpuppets, and I am also inclined to believe that User:Sleeping water is behind this.  I don't want to just add those names to this page unless the admin(s) carrying out the investigation feel it is useful for me to do so. Gabhala (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
OK, here goes: the following are all ✅ as being the same: TN X Man 14:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All accounts have been tagged and blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Shirik
User:Milckrawler is a DUCK simply due to the naming convention of the username and contributions. Ivan Kh appears to have showed up out of nowhere and immediately reported someone who reverted him to ANI. I find it likely that both of these are socks of Efurt150. Self endorsed for CU attention on Ivan Kh just to double-check and also for a sleeper check, since it appears socks are being created at a fairly rapid rate. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Self endorsed for the reasons above -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both are . Tiptoety  talk 17:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked combined with behavioral evidence. Also protected the page for 2 weeks. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)