Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoyden1/Archive

24 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Multiple almost identical !votes in quick succession at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24. Normally discussions there get little response and usually from established users. Early in the discussion the comments tend to be detailed as to why the editors support the request. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Given that this article is the subject of an op ed in the New York Times and in the Huffington Post, which explained to the public in explicit detail about apparent sexism on Wikipedia, and that these editorials and the subsequent facebook and twitter reposting of them have been read by perhaps twenty million people I don't think that there is anything unexpected about three new accounts posting in the commentary.
 * The fact that these new accounts posted the same thing in the same words, should be taken as evidence to indicate that they are newbies, not sock puppets. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. Especially since objections have been raised on the CfD page over the striking out of comments by the suspected socks, it would be helpful for a CU to determine if stronger evidence exists to link these accounts. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the behavoir on the CfD is suspicious, technically:
 * Bloomcity and Ojeffs are ✅
 * Hoyden1 is
 * Ebenbach is
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As noted in the CFD, the discussion has been heavily canvassed on Facebook and the press, so there's not much difference whether any new single-purpose accounts are the same person or multiple random people appearing from all over the web. The user who closes the CFD will just have to take the canvassing into account. That said, I have blocked the confirmed accounts. Jafeluv (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For "user", read "poor schmuck", male or female. But yes, this is true. And I don't think we should be doing any more striking of comments for this reason--the closing admin will weigh arguments. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. Rschen7754 07:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)