Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Just searching77/Archive

17 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This account is quaking pretty loudly, though I do not know the identity of the potential puppeteer. The accounts first edit was to use the twinkle unlink function to rack up 50+ edits, resulting in autoconfirmed status when the 4 day timer runs. The next edit was to play with a substed csd template in their sandbox. That the editor used an obscure function of twinkle to rack up an bunch of edits, and then played with substing a template which is also a rather obscure and sophisticated thing to be doing suggests they have at least had other accounts. There have also been some questionable edits targeting User:Johnny Squeaky. I'm not entirely sure if this is enough to get a checkuser, but I wanted to at least report my suspicions and give it a try. Monty 845  16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Reversion of removal of talk page messages by Johnny Squeaky from their own talk page This happens a lot and isn't that unusual.
 * inexplicable reversion of an editors removal of content from their own userpage This seems extremely susipicous
 * substing of a CSD template into sandbox
 * removing of CSD categories from the substed template While there are legitimate reasons to do that, and I have actually had reason to do so myself, it strikes me as very sophisticated behavior inconsistent with what one would expect from a such a new editor.
 * one of 50+ link removals using the automated unlink function from WP:TW. Using WP:TW from such an early stage is also suspicious. See also any of the first 50+ edits in their contribution history
 * Borderline on whether it is enough to be directly actionable, but very suspicious and I think indicative of sock puppetry. Monty  845  17:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for looking things over, will just wait for further conduct to justify a non sock block. Monty  845  17:38, 17 December 2012 (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

 * for now. That sounds like it may be reasonable grounds for a checkuser request, however you will need to supply a few diffs to back up each of your assertions. One diff per assertion is enough. Once you've done that, I'll happily take a look at the case again. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . I was almost willing to run a check, but looking at the diffs you've provided, there's no evidence of abuse of multiple accounts. Clearly this isn't the user's first account, but unless we can show some abuse or significant disruption then we can't really run a check. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Account is blocked now. Closing. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)