Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isaacatm/Archive

03 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Per a discussion with an admin at Requests for undeletion (as preserved here), the master appears to have been indefblocked for pushing an article on one person (among other things), and the puppet appears to be continuing to push an article on the same person using the same userspace draft page. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   06:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I must have opened this shortly after Jeff, but I have to concur that this is likely the same person. It's just very WP:DUCK that this user created an account to make the same page that had resulted in the original user getting blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Rschen7754 07:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing, and will throw away sandbox. Rschen7754 07:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

02 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Both accounts have an edit history relating mainly to variant articles on Olatunde Olalekan Issac as with the previous Sock accounts - solely in the case of Levels016 (including name insertion into other articles: ), largely in the case of Biomolecules. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * See, , , . These users recreate articles about the same person, adding wikipedia article links between ref tags.  Dloh  cierekim  07:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added the already blocked account to the list, who made this very strange edit. - DVdm (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that account was created 'cause I blocked Ainakan. That was just for 31 hrs, BTW. Dloh cierekim  13:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeffing Biomolecules as consistent with other socks and tagging. Leaving case open while deletion discussion is open.
 * Article deleted and salted, all socks blocked indef. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

7 December 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This is a duck used to covertly add material that has been deleted per Articles_for_deletion/Olatunde_olalekan. The sock signature edit is:. Other edits are almost solely related to very narrow topic in biochemistry field and match closely edits made by other indef. blocked Isaacatm/Olatunde socks like Special:Contributions/Biomolecules and Special:Contributions/Ainakan. jni (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * other than seeing a biochemistry edit set I don't understand, I see nothing conclusive. Blocked prophylactically and then unblocked with my apologies. There is that one troubling edit. Maybe it's him. Can't be sure. Dloh cierekim  17:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This account was created almost immediately after the other Isaacatm socks were blocked. Do you think it is a coincidence that this new user tweaks references to little-known reseach papers about Solanum anguivi, an article created by sockpuppet User:Biomolecules? The edits appear constructive, but someone should verify the references just in case this isn't some kind of sneaky vandalism/hoax (I haven't done that yet, I have concentrated on deleting the remaining references to this Olalekan self-promoter from Wikipedia - except these citations to scientific papers as they might be valid sources even if the purpose of their insertion is to promote this non-notable researcher.) Suggest sleeper sweep to see if there are any more accounts. jni (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' My fellow editors,I thank you all for your impact on wikipedia. I got a notice that am suspected of sockpuppet. I don't see any reason for me to create multiple accounts on wikipedia. And I want to use this medium to tell you that my new account has nothing to do with the suspects; Isaacatm,biomolecules ainakan and any other user or the article about the non-notable researcher. Although my computer had a serious problem due to virus infection and I had been visiting a comercial computer center were I pay to browse per hour. I don't know If any of the above suspects of sockpuppet also uses the same browsing center because its not my juridition to be monitoring anybody that visit the same computer center so I wouldn't know if any one is using the same Ip to abuse wikipedia. Although I appear more like a new user.Am not realy a new user I once have an account on wikipedia but I lost the diary that contain the pin and username. That's why I created a new one you see as “sixtyn”. Esteem wikipedian,let's not punish the inoccent ones for what they knows nothing about. And I believe that we all have the same goal. Thank you for the investigation but my user his inoccent of the allegation.(Sixtyn (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC))

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I have indeffed Sixtyn based on WP:DUCK. Part of it is based on his edits, which have already been mentioned: the addition of "Olatunde Isaac" to the list of biochemists, the mention of solanum anguivi, and the timing of the account creation. However, even more telling was the user's comments here. Why does he say that Olatunde is "non-notable" when he himself added Olatunde to the list? He also seems to anticipate a CU that would confirm the account as a puppet by his comments about IPs and the computer center, etc. There's no reason for him to go into that. In addition, his style is similar to a few of the other accounts that talked (some didn't). Finally, his editing was disruptive. He tagged multiple articles for speedy deletion that were clearly not deletable, almost as if he wanted revenge for the deletion of the Olatunde article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing.

2014 June 1

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RHaworth (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 June 2014‎ (UTC)