Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hyper obese guy/Archive

10 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This edit by the sock is very similar to this  by the blocked (only yesterday) sockmaster. Checkuser is justified by the similarities in the editing, putting messages on my talk page and. It is also likely that the person responsible has had dealings with me before, as Hyper obese guy made their sixth edit on my talk page, and Ftawww made their first there. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have had significant recent attention from socks (see User:Oldhouse2012), and a sleeper check would be worthwhile in terms of avoiding further sideshow alley Whac-a-mole sessions. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks DQ. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:24, 10 March 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

 * - Should do a sleeper check, just in case. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the suspected (and apparently admitted) sock is already indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account, no need to do a CU for its sake, and only two accounts wouldn't provide CU with enough info for a range block. This sock is new, not a sleeper, but maybe the master has other sleepers. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * CU can't indetify a master, and there could be sleepers, but because of a busy range, I can't block them till I have more evidence that it's them. Otherwise the two accounts are . -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  14:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing case without tagging, per DENY. Edits are just puerile vandalism anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)