Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kochtruth/Archive

28 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The user joints and with in a few hours adds a long list of issues to the Koch Industries page [] The user was indefinitely blocked due to a user name policy violation Username_policy. The block and associated reasons are on the user talk page here []

The new user joints hours later and is attempting to make basically the same edits []

The original block was based on a user name issue and the blocking admin stated that changing the name would/could address the issue. It appears the user opened a new account instead. Springee (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Springee (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * If I'm not mistaken, those indef'd under the username policy are allowed to create a new account that meets the username policy to continue editing. The block message on Kochtruth's talk page certainly implies that. It states you can choose to formally change your username, but you aren't required to do so. Barring any other considerations, I do not believe the creation of a second account is abusive here. ~ RobTalk 00:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . The issue of disruption comes up only if there is evidence of socking. There is none here. The user apparently did what he (he for convenience) was instructed to do. Creating another username himself was the preferred route based on the block notice. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

14 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This one is tricky, as the "sock" listed above is another iteration of the user. However, due to the fact that a Daily Kos edito flat out admits to creating an account to correct a perceived bias in Koch Industries articles, and then go on to baselessly attack editors and one administrator as essentially being schills of Koch, because they were reverted, made me suspect when I was reading this that there may be other accounts hidden that they are operating on other articles, as it is clear that they are not hear to improve the site. The second account is just a renaming of the main account, as the first was blocked for a bad username, and the second one was blocked for not being productive on the site. I have absolutely no opinion on the article's future, but I think it might be good to find any sleeper accounts, as I would not be surprised if there is some sort of sock farm underlying these two accounts. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * While there's nothing in the original report suggesting that socks have been used, the following diff is a likely sock edit following the indef block of VeritasVincitUSA: . That editor was blocked indef as a sock and for various other reasons. Given that a major organization has claimed the account and stated they are performing an "investigation", it seems likely that sleepers may exist as they may be attempting to continue "investigating" how NPOV works. This may be borderline, but I would expect a CU to yield results. ~ RobTalk 06:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that one out again, as I saw it earlier yesterday and completely forgot about it. Regardless, I have gone ahead and added it to the checkuser request bit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I just added the IP, which is also doing some editing on the page. It's probably also the main underlying IP, but I am adding it to make sure that all bases are covered. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The named accounts are blocked. No basis to do a sleeper check. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

A brand new editor made only a few edits, but they alluded to the previous editor's blocking, as well as The Daily Kos, which published an article about Wikipedia's supposed bias for the Kochs.

This is what they posted on their own page: "An admin called Ricky bans a user that was on the site for 30 hours because he didn't like the username, and then he also deleted his sandbox permanently and all record of it. Notice that the user went to Koch Industries article and posted a long list of crimes committed by them, with citations for every single one before being banned. None of the added information is on the page anymore. Later on the user makes a new account and gets banned, but after that he publishes a piece of the dailykos outlining what happened. None of the users that kept revealing information of the Koch Industries page was given any kind of enforcement."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:POC2016&diff=726849665&oldid=726751425
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:POC2016&diff=726855668&oldid=726849665
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:POC2016&diff=726856407&oldid=726855668

The "Science Denial" quip suggests this person is referencing articles related to the Kochs.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&curid=8515958&diff=726856160&oldid=726560177

Being no other reason why this new user would know about user Kochtruth, or know about those events, this sounds like a WP:DUCK to me. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC) DaltonCastle (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2016 (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

 * I ran a check on POC2016 and found that it is a sock of Kswikiaccount. I'm not convinced that they are related to the accounts listed on this SPI. Mike V • Talk 21:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)