Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HGJ345/Archive

06 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both editors are basically SPA accounts for 16:10, where there has been a slow edit war going on for some time. It has resulted in now two ANI discussions (one ongoing, which is how I found this case) plus a DRN that the master wouldn't participate in (he was the only one on that side of the argument). The other day, the sock shows up a couple of weeks after the first ANI discussion, has only made two edits, both fully supporting the master, who instantly agrees by name. Not strong enough for a duck block with only two edits, but the coincidence is suspicious enough to justify a checkuser to quickly look and see if these are the same editor. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:00, 6 September 2012 (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
Self endorsing. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * and are a ✅ match.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Already blocked, adding tag and closing.

22 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:Urklistre was an SPA at 16:10, blocked in September 2012 for sockpuppetry and overall disruptive behaviour (first temp, then permaban). ANI #1, SPI, ANI #2. User:Acoriofs is likewise an SPA at the same article, editing the same sections of the article (most notably removing content from this section (diff)), and displaying similar behaviour (tendentious editing, apparent unwillingness to engage in constructive discussion, ignoring WP:BRD). Due to the recent sockpuppetry incident at the same article, and per advice from another editor, I'd like to request a quick SPI check, if only to exclude the possibility of this being another sockpuppet, so proper dispute resolution may resume. Indrek (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just noticed something. Today a comment by User:Acoriofs at Talk:16:10 was edited from IP 109.228.145.200 (diff). It looks like one of the more than 20 incremental edits he has been making to his talk page post (see talk page history), and he probably just forgot to log in. What's curious is that the same IP posted a comment in the previous content dispute back in July-August in which User:Urklistre was a participant (diff), and in the very next edit User:Urklistre claimed ownership of that comment (diff), also apparently having forgotten to log in.
 * In short, both User:Acoriofs and User:Urklistre appear to have posted from the same IP address, and from a quick whois check it doesn't seem to be a school or otherwise public/shared IP. Indrek (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2012 (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

 * Obvious sock is obvious. 2 weeks for IP, indef for sock.  Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

20 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Stuff like vs  make it seemingly clear, as well as he general interest in an obscure topic. I would note that this account is actually older than the current master, and as such, would need to be moved over to this new master. The reason this wouldn't have been picked up by the last CU was due to the timing of edits, as this account slept from March of 2010 until January of 2013, so no log entries would have existed when the CU was done. Perhaps the prior CU has a good memory and can clear this up, or I will trust it to others to determine if this is a duck block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Might also be worth checking out User:QAQUAU. He's been present during both disputes (the one last year and the currently ongoing one), offering the same sort of token support for both User:Urklistre and User:HGJ345  while failing to respond to direct requests for clarification about his viewpoint. If not a sockpuppet, then might be a meatpuppet, although now that User:Amalthea has pointed out (below) the lack of apostrophes and use of slash as signature separator, I notice that User:QAQUAU is also doing the same. Indrek (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've changed status to HOLD from close, pending renaming of this case by an uninvolved clerk. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 13:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I agree with your reasoning. In addition, notice missing apostrophes and the signature separator in . Country is also a match. Blocked, like you said case page/tags may need cleaning up. Sorry for the slow response time, you know how it is. :/  Amalthea  16:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing, then, per above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's actually new evidence, per Indrek above:
 * is as much a match as HGJ345 was. Blocked and tagged.
 * is confirmed sock of HGJ345. Blocked and tagged.
 * Also reverted the recent edits to 16:10, and semi-protected it for a bit. Amalthea  12:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the case here from Sockpuppet investigations/Urklistre since HGJ345 is the oldest account. Also closing again, since all evidence has been taken into account and newly uncovered sockpuppets were blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding after archiving: I've duck blocked per WP:DUCK. Adding to keep a record. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

25 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:Averystos flagged the 16:10 article as biased/POV, without any accompanying explanation beyond "Strange article. Very biased.". This is very similar to User:HGJ345's behaviour in same article, who also added problem templates to the article, which later led to him removing valid, sourced content. Also, User:Averystos shows the same habit of omitting apostrophes and using slash as signature separator (originally pointed out in a previous SPI case).

Due to the long history of vandalism and sockpuppetry at 16:10, I'm requesting a quick SPI check before I potentially waste time engaging in a futile dispute. Indrek (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2013 (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

 * Yep, another old sleeper sock. Blocked, tagged, reverted. Amalthea  13:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)