Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Idera1123/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Looks like an SPA farm came out of the woodwork in behalf of the article James Broughton (musician).
 * First the sockmaster Idera1123 creates the article, after making 10 insignificant edits elsewhere to get autoconfirmed status. This implies that the editor has some experience and has been on Wikipedia before.
 * Szilviszabo hasn't edited outside the article and appeared shortly after it was created.
 * LegendBalr was created before the article was, but this account's first edits were in James Broughton (musician). It has moved on to a few others.
 * Saintrp hasn't edited outside the article.
 * AnotherPwg appeared to cast a useless WP:ILIKEIT "keep" vote at Articles for deletion/James Broughton (musician).
 * 103.7.77.21 blanked the AFD tag from the article, claiming "the discussion is closed".
 * 45.116.233.53 blanked the AFD discussion, claiming "the discussion is closed".
 * The other 45.116.23x.xxx addresses are clearly in the same range as the AFD blanker, and have no recent contributions outside the article subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2018 (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
Please explain why you believe a Checkuser check is called for here, as opposed to simply acting based on behavioural evidence. You should review the policy page WP:CHECK. Also note that CU policy generally forbids tying named accounts to IP addresses, so any argument for CU action can only involve named accounts. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are two different IP address ranges involved, and that one of the named accounts was created before the article was, make me uncertain whether this is sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or simply a coincidence resulting from external canvassing. Therefore it is appropriate for a checkuser to clarify the situation. For example, the editor AnotherPwg has already been CU-blocked but possibly not related to this SPI case. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, for CU.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I checked 3 of the users, all ❌. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This was one case where the WP:DUCK was visible but not quacking. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This case has not been touched for nearly three months now and all the accounts are very inactive and/or blocked; I'm closing this as stale. Deskana (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)