Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EyeTripleE/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This is following up on a preliminary claim by User:Flyer22 Reborn (here and here) that Petergrstrom is a sock. That has been on my mind.

Petergstrom was blocked for edit warring on MDMA starting at 17:26, 11 January 2017 for 31 hours. Petergrstrom was intensely engaged with that article when the block hit. During the time that Petergstrom was blocked, at 18:52, 12 January 2017, EyeTripleE, who had never edited that article, showed up at the MDMA article and made two edits, diff1 and diff2, the first noodling with a picture placement and the 2nd tweaking content that had been added by one of the people Petergstrom was edit warring with, before Petergstrom got blocked -  diff where that content was first added. That is a not huge deal, but it was... weird.

Per the edit count tool, the putative master has 2,059 edits since Feb 2015 and per that and their contribs, they have almost all been to schools in mid-Illinois. Many of them Catholic.

Petergstrom's edits are all religion and neuro/psych subjects. if you look at Petergstrom's first edits from Oct 2016, they are not really a newbie's. (see here). On religion topics. Like the putative master,

With respect to Soli58 (relevance pointed out at AN by someone else in this diff), per its contribs it was created Feb 3 and has made only 5 edits - 2 to religion topics, one creating a sandbox, one to Psychopathy and the last to an actress. Petergstrom has 68 edits to that article which removed great swaths of content; the one one edit to psychopathy by Soli58 continued that trend.

So this is all pretty suggestive. I look for a CU to confirm whether there is socking going on here. I can bring ~some~ more behavioral evidence if needed. It doesn't add a lot. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I actually support the CU, I hope it will finally put matters to rest.Petergstrom (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The three accounts are ❌.
 * The following accounts are ✅, blocked and tagged:
 * The behavioral evidence is not strong enough to block Petergstrom or Soli58 without technical findings to support it. Here there is none.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The behavioral evidence is not strong enough to block Petergstrom or Soli58 without technical findings to support it. Here there is none.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The behavioral evidence is not strong enough to block Petergstrom or Soli58 without technical findings to support it. Here there is none.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: Upon an independent checkuser review, I have unblocked Sizeofint and EyeTripleE, for the reasons explained on User talk:Sizeofint. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)