Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John17587/Archive

05 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Several new user all claiming article Pete Hawkes is properly sourced and removing advert tags. Activity seems to indicate that Meatpuppet or Sockpuppets are at work trying to avoid scrutiny. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:31, 5 September 2015 (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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * I've blocked and tagged all. Semi-protected the article for two weeks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged all. Semi-protected the article for two weeks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged all. Semi-protected the article for two weeks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged all. Semi-protected the article for two weeks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged all. Semi-protected the article for two weeks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged all. Semi-protected the article for two weeks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All single-purpose accounts created to add promotional text to Pete Hawkes; none has edited any other article. Slashme (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The evidence for sockpuppetry is not the content of the edits, but the context: there is a constant stream of single-purpose throwaway accounts being created to edit Pete Hawkes - these are just the most recent four. Before Bbb23's edit, there was a list of 25 of these accounts, none of which had edited any other article. In lieu of diffs (none of which proves anything on its own), I submit the page history of the article. I don't even think a CheckUser is needed in the face of such blatant sockpuppetry. --Slashme (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2017 (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
can you add diffs that show evidence of sock puppetry? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No diffs provided after 1 month. Closing. GABgab 00:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)