Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fladrif/Archive

09 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I became suspicious of sockpuppet or maybe two account names being used by the one editor during a heated argument with another editor: Fladrif. Although the article on Brian David Mitchell gets some traffic, the Talk page only gets 0 to 5 odd visits a day. We argued over deleting a section and I asked Fladrif to open the issue up in the talk page first before deleting. She/he did so and then almost straight after that opened a Question on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard at 14:42 wiki time. Then Fladrif returns to the Talk page to say that it is opened on BLPN. Then someone who has not been active on wikipedia since April 2008, editor 99.149.87.54, decided to become all active again first going to a Notice board on wikipedia, BLPN, but suffers an Internet downtime for a while then post there at 15:25 and decides to join the discussion on mitchell Talk page at 16:44 basically agreeing with Fladrif's points on WP:PRIMARY and so on. The evidence here is that it is far too convenient for Fladrif's OPV that this inactive editor shows up first going to a BLPN, which is hard to find for non wikipedians and would not normally be the first site visited by someone who was inactive for some three years and chooses to join this discussion on someone they never commented on before and above the other entries above it and then in one day, March 8, has a long list of small edits when at the same time Fladrif has hardly any. No other editor bothered with the BLPN on mitchell although two others did call me out on my suspicion of sockpuppet. It is too convenient and too suspicious and too coincidental for this to happen within a few hours time so because of that I'm asking for checkuser and investigation of both names, Fladrif and 99.149.87.54 since I suspect they are one and the same which is against the communities rules. Wombat24 (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Fer chrissake. As two 99 IPs I've previously commented on this here and here . Wombat has already been advised by two administrators that this is an inappropriate course . This is something very much like WP:HARASSMENT. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, SPI admins, I won't post in the section below and I won't take action here since I'm invoooolved in two ways: I know that 99 is nobody's sock, and I have tried to talk this Wombat out of this completely boneheaded plan. Shit, they asked for CU as well. When this is over, they should receive a bill. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem above, should have been 99.149.87.54 and its edit history. Will correct it now. Just for your info cause it seems this has already been decided.Wombat24 (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For what its worth I simply didn't know that the two who wrote on my talk page were administrators. At first I was suspicious of their very quick responseWombat24 (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - CU can't be used when the only comparison is to an IP address — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see much of a connection. Definitely agree with Drmies. I'll AGF on wombat's intentions, but any link here was extremely tenuous at best. NativeForeigner Talk 21:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)