Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karyn Devlin/Archive

07 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets



90.222.127.214 edit-warred at The Stone Roses (album), attempting to introduce POV-based material into the article while accusing me of ownership and fancruft. When the IP was reverted by multiple editors, appeared (out of nowhere seemingly) restoring the IP's changes  and following with similar accusations. From each "editor's" contributions history, it appears the person edited as the IP and logged in (as Karyn Devlin) after their changes were disputed and did not want to break 3RR on 3 October. The next day they edited again as the IP and for the next few days, edit warring at The Stone Roses (album), until 6 October, when the IP was blocked for edit warring at that article. Their unblock request was denied on 21:29, 6 October 2015, and on 00:06, 7 October 2015 Karyn Devlin made their first edit in four days by reverting and restoring to the revision preferred and sources proposed by the IP. Dan56 (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

This is pretty disgusting. I have The Stone Roses (album) on my watchlist, and stepped in to try to resolve some edit warring. I only partially agreed with the IP and was NOT trying to restore his/her work as Dan56 claims. I returned last night, again NOT to restore the IP's work but to create a happy medium, after learning it had been blocked, because I felt the FasterLouder piece had a place in the article. In fact, that version is much closer to what Dan56 originally wanted. He clearly has an obsessive interest in the subject and is lashing out at those who might jeopardise its "greatness" to readers. He has already been chided for labeling the IPs edits as "vandalism", when they weren't. Karyn Devlin (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
as we don't publicly connect an IP address with an account, so I'm moving it to the open queue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this because the evidence presented is not strong enough to prove socking, and I also cannot find any stronger evidence.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)