Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Happy225/Archive

12 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The original user was editing here until 5 January this year with an almost single-minded focus on Patricia Cloherty (a BLP which has been the subject of significant but inexplicable vandalism). Having received a final warning, Happy225 stopped editing. 4 days later, the second account appeared, focused on a different BLP (Kirill Dmitriev) related to Cloherty. But it didn't take long, and the following month the second account made its first edit to the Cloherty BLP - a single innocuous edit to begin with then a couple of months off (without the first being reverted) and he/she returned, this time to again draw attention to a unverifiable "controversy". I've since noticed that it was this same "controversy" that was being editing into the Dmitriev BLP. They have been very careful and it has taken this long for them to finally come out of their shell and reveal their true intentions - today removing content and suggesting a particular affiliation was "controversial". The editing style is very similar (tagging the inclusion of unsourced controversy as minor edits, for example) on top of the obvious attempts to "insert" the same material. Requesting a checkuser (if the primary account is not too stale) given the quacking and the sensitive nature of the articles being targeted. Stalwart 111  08:59, 12 September 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

 * - Happy225 is for CU purposes. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you don't think the accounts are related? Rschen7754 06:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They might be — but given that the first account (Happy225) hasn't edited at all for over eight months and has no current (or even recent) blocks, there doesn't seem to be any reason to investigate in depth as an SPI, and any disruptive editing by can probably be handled on its own without having to worry about linking such activity to the long-abandoned account.  Just to cover bases, though, I'll leave a message on Shakespeare21's talk page.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)