Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fleets/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both of these months-old accounts edit almost exclusively around how Infobox rugby league biography is used in articles, sometimes identically. Both readily edit war over that usage. Both attempt to discuss it in the same (intentionally?) incoherent blathering way (1 2, ). In these respects it is also an astonishingly similar case to that of repeat offender, User:Londo06, further heightening suspicion. Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Déjà vu: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Archive_20 and User_talk:Gibson_Flying_V. This user seems to be self-destructing again, now openly engaging in blatant edit-warring on my talk page, Conor Fitzsimmons, Joel Moon and elsewhere. In hindsight it looks like this investigation should have perhaps been opened up under the previous case name, Sockpuppet investigations/Londo06.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's an edit by User:Londo06 to a rugby league biography's infobox in which he/she
 * a) removes the image caption and
 * b) adds again to the 'fullname' field what's already in the 'name' feld:
 * Two inexplicable and disruptive changes which User:Fleets insists upon continuing.,,,,--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, here's me cleaning up after Londo06 (and his sockpuppet) the addition of non-notable nicknames to rugby league biography infoboxes. And the exact same thing with Fleets: --Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2016 (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

 * The accounts are . Fleets is the older account.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved the case to Fleets. GABgab 17:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have spent a long time checking the editing history of the accounts. There are enough similarities between Fleets and Theanonymousentry to justify the suspicions that Gibson Flying V has raised, but I can't find anything specific enough to definitely indicate sockpuppetry. I am inclined to close this investigation without action, but in view of Bbb23's "inconclusive" CU result, in combination with the inconclusive behavioural evidence, I feel there are enough doubts that I will leave it open for now, to see if anyone can offer anything that may help to clarify the situation. As for the earlier sockpuppeteer Londo06, I have seen nothing that can't be explained simply as editing by editors with similar interests; if there is anything more definite then please provide diffs. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Case closed with no action for the lack of evidence.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Chocolatebareater creates numerous articles of questionable notability, Fleets seems to show up at all the AfD discussions for them and votes keep, removes CSD tags and/or contests the deletions after they've been deleted at AfD and suggests "perhaps" things have changed in two months. User:Chocolatebareater has been to AN/I over this behavior. Keep votes are almost always one sentence beginning with "Professional player..." or "Professional debut" for both Chocolatebareater and Fleets. Both also seem to confuse CSD and PROD tags, Fleets does so here and Chocolatebareater does so at the above-mentioned ANI. Also of note, but not quite so damning, both seem to not use interpuncts before their keep votes on AfD pages. Writing styles also appear rather similar on talk pages. User:Ethanprice00 falls into this because of the intersection of edits and similar misunderstandings of Wikipedia guidelines. Waggie (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC) It's also worth noting that both Fleets and Chocolatebareater have voted multiple times on AfDs, and Chocolatebareater was warned for it on his talk page. Waggie (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Places me geographically at the time of when one of the editors made an edit.Fleets (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cannot provide evidence my means of taking photos at games, but I'm happy to have this roll out as I'm sure the SPI checks will prove that I am not the ChocolateBarEater editor.Fleets (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The last day that this ChocolateBarEater edited, 28 Feb there would be a significant cross-over in editing times so I imagine a simple geographical check will do the trick.Fleets (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The two accounts are ❌ to Fleets. Ethanprice00 is .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging re Chocolatebareater. GABgab 01:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already spoken to Ks0stm privately. Bottom line: you just need to decide whether Ethanprice00 should be blocked as a sock of Theanonymousentry, and then this case can be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , did you ever reach a conclusion here?


 * This one seems to have slipped my mind. I can take a look at it now, though. GABgab 13:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, so:
 * Both edit around the same time period (8-16 hrs).
 * Both edit overwhelmingly to article space: 95.7 and 100%
 * They overlap on six articles: Kevin Larroyer, Frankie Mariano, Alex Foster (rugby league), Castleford Tigers, Ryan Boyle (rugby league) Greg Minikin. In their top months, these articles have received between 220 monthly views (Boyle) and <10,000 (Castleford).
 * Both edit on the same subject: rugby league, generally UK, with a smattering of football (soccer) thrown in.

But:


 * The alleged master edits on far more days (i.e. M-F), while the alleged sock edits on just Thursday and Sunday.
 * The alleged master uses edit summaries and makes minor edits far more often than the alleged sock.
 * The edit summaries of the two users are quite different.
 * The alleged sock uses VisualEdit almost exclusively; not so for the alleged master.
 * The alleged master's editing is far more mechanical (although neither use semi-automated tools).
 * The alleged sock uses incorrect section breaks and even cites Wikipedia as a source. In contrast, the alleged master's editing seems a lot more polished and professional. For instance, compare some of their page creations: Alleged master 1, 2, alleged sock.

In short, there is some behavioral evidence to back the technical assessment of sockpuppetry, but also plenty that does not support this conclusion. If there was a clerk template for "inconclusive," I'd probably use it here. Apologies for the delay and lack of definitive findings. Best, GABgab 20:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good analysis. I'm going to make mention here that Fleets was not only unlikely above but he was a bit typified incorrectly by the filer. Three spot checks show Fleets !voting to delete and not keep Chocolate's articles as described above: example 1, example 2, example 3...there are more. Fleets did not defend himself here on that count so I will. Unless, someone were to explain this as good hand/bad hand, his behavior seems to exonerate him.
 * On occasion, editors may be asked to explain if there is a plausible explanation concerning multiple accounts. Should we inform Theanonymousentry of this SPI now that the CU has found likely results and inquire? ...or close as inconclusive? Btw, lack of definitive findings is a perfectly acceptable position and you owe no apologies for that. It happens to all of us.


 * Apparently is not more probable than not. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both users have similar edit summaries (Special:Contributions/Fleets & Special:Contributions/Theanonymousentry), often consisting of one word (intro, infobox, tidy etc.)

Both users make a large number of edits within a short space of time, but are coincidentally never online at the same time.

Both users edit almost exclusively on rugby league articles, usually making specific edits to infoboxes, formatting etc. (see diffs here where both users add an entire new section titled "Background" consisting of only one line stating where the player was born -, & , ).

Both users edit war if their changes are reverted – without discussion unless prompted to do so. Diffs of both users edit warring over the addition of trivial nicknames to infoboxes.

Both users invariably share the same opinion in community discussions, usually disagreeing with previously established consensus (see here). For one discussion, the user actually responds using the two accounts as if they are the same person, before realising their mistake and amending their previous comment in a bizarre fashion. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2017 (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
This has been addressed before. See archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * CU evidence has twice shown a lack of a technical connection between these two, and while there some obvious similarities, there are also some little, but important quirks Fleets' editing and writing style not shared by Theanonymousentry. I have to agree with previous findings that these two are not the same person. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)