Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justme78783/Archive

06 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Edit-warring at Albania. Removing information about the higher range of the population percentage of the Greek minority in Albania although multiple references have been pointed to him with quotations:,. Similar type of edits to master.
 * Evidence
 * Accusing others of propaganda when reverting: Justme vs Thinkmore
 * Threatening admin and legal action Justme vs Thinkmore threatening arbitration and again.
 * Adding information about tourism in Albania: Justme vs Thinkmore
 * Edit-warring about population percentages in Albania: Justme vs Thinkmore, Thinkmore again. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  05:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you James for your excellent behavioural analysis and for stopping this disruption. My thanks also go to MS and DoRD for their technical analysis. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  14:27, 6 September 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
It looks to me very likely. Not only is there the above evidence, but there are also stylistic similarities, and the fact that the Thinkmore2202 account was created after Justme78783 had been blocked and had a block appeal declined. Although it is not directly evidence of sockpuppetry, it is also notable that Thinkmore2202 waited a few days after creating the account, and then rapidly made exactly the ten edits required to become autoconfirmed before staring on the article where Justme78783 had been disruptive. Sockpuppet or not, Thinkmore2202 has been highly disruptive, and I have blocked the account for 48 hours, but a CU would be helpful, because if it is a case of sockpuppetry then an indefinite block will be justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Self-endorsing for CU check. These two are . Very hard to identify sleepers or other related accounts without behavioral evidence (i.e. just from mechanical CU checks). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * With the behavior taken into account, the named users are ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet indef-blocked, and both accounts tagged. Thanks to all who have contributed to this investigation. JamesBWatson (talk)