Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ffdsajkl101/Archive

Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
The suspected sockmaster has primarily been edit warring on the Marriage article. He was recently blocked for a violation of 3rr at 20:49, November 10, 2009. Although the IP has yet to edit past this date, the user has previously, obviously logged out in order to try and evade 3rr, or vote stack. Please compare this diff and this diff. Also check out this, in which the IP fixes an error in the suspected socmaster's post, and lastly, this diff, in which the IP responds to a post as if it was the suspected sock master.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Conclusions
The IP is clearly Ffdsajkl101. No need for a block on the IP as the autoblock already took care of that. MuZemike 03:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
This brand-new account(tx), as the first edit, immediately comes to Talk:Marriage and posts a statement that points to a non-existant consensus(consensus is in fact against the edit), and promptly begins to edit war in favor of the change of the sockmaster. Please see the previous report for the specific edit that is the same as the edit displayed above. Please note that the above account was created at 02:48, November 12, 2009, a date that falls under the block period of the suspected sock master. Although the block has ended by now, it would have been block evasion to create the account as the user had done.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just added, as it is a similar username, who appears to either be the actual possible socmaster(as it was created first), or another SPA, as it has made roughly the same edit, and has done so in the same way(claiming consensus, edit warring).—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Added, per the fact that it's a brand-new account editing in basic support of the other accounts, with a similar editing style(see usually, along with the fact that all listed accounts are making their choice edits and telling others to go to the talk page to discuss before reverting).—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  00:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I'd say there's not a whole lot of question that these accounts are all socks, but I think Checkuser could answer the question of whose hand they're on. User:Afaprof01 has been quite insistent, of recent, of a change to the lead wording that all these new accounts happen to come along and support when that change failed to gain consensus. They also all seem to exhibit the same behavior of I didn't hear that behavior as Afaprof01 does, as well as linguistic and manner of speech patterns (especially "First sentence proposal" and insistence that they have consensus regardless of arguments against.) Not conclusive at this point, I don't think, but I think technical evidence could be helpful. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On 17 November 2009, showed up to marriage, and I have blocked accordingly. -Andrew c [talk] 17:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

CU is required to see if this user is indeed trying to create a false consensus and avoid 3rr.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

– Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that these accounts are the same user. No CU necessary. MuZemike 20:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Socks indefinitely blocked and tagged, sockmaster blocked 2 weeks for sock puppetry and edit-warring via socks. MuZemike 20:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and per the latest sock created, Ffdsajkl101's block is now indefinite. MuZemike 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Daedalus969
IP comes out of nowhere just as the newest sock is blocked, to support the sock in his edits.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is required to see if a rangeblock is feasible, as this user continues to evade his block, disrupting wikipedia.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  01:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike 03:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Range block is not possible. Brandon (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
taken - The last edit from that IP was back on the 17th so I am going to leave it unblocked. As for the rangeblock, Brandon's answer above takes that possibility out of the picture. Tiptoety talk 07:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Ash
The content of these recent edits to same-sex marriage, the nature of the account names, their contributions and the dates of account creation (10 minutes apart), appear to be sock puppet activity intended to remove the term "gay marriage" from the article. WP:QUACK would seem to apply here. —Ash (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * diff 19:51, 16 January 2010
 * diff 20:04, 16 January 2010

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I think a CU would be useful in determining who the real master account is as the edits were to jump in and talk about 'consensus' straight away, which to me means they have likely been part of a longer dispute on the page. NJA (t/ c)  10:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ as sockpuppets of banned user Ffdsajkl101, along with:
 * Dominic·t 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dominic·t 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Aaccounts blocked and tagged. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)