Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kronikerdelta/Archive

20 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

I suspect these three are either sock or meatpuppets of each other as they have made the same exact edits within just a few days of each other. Regarding the content itself, this GMC website clearly states that graduates from the school are not acceptable for licensing in the UK. (See the heading Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC which lists under Belize the St Matthew's University School of Medicine. Basket of Puppies  01:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider this a load of crock. St. Matthew's University is not in Belize, it is on Grand Cayman and it IS approved by your very source.  Cut the crap and stop reverting the page.  I have one account here.  I would imagine there are other students, like me, that are currently on hte island and don't want wikipedia posting lies in print about our school.   δij  i.b'r'o'k'e.it.  23:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I need to note here that the edits made by the accounts differ significantly in wording, and all are correcting the same incorrect content, (now fixed), using the only official source as their basis. There seems be be a justified reason for different accounts to try and fix the same content, as opposed to different accounts making the same error or using the same wording. - Bilby (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. Simply look at the date this account was created and my previous posts. δij i.b'r'o'k'e.it.  23:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment: This investigation should be carried out for possible Checkuser technical data. The account has engaged in disruption and made threats when he has not gotten his way, see ANI thread. -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Per WP:DUCK I've blocked Fbadenho. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm having some serious reservations here. for a check to confirm before we close this. T. Canens (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

❌ –MuZemike 17:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I'm going to leave my initial block in place, I think, as it seems they were both editing in collusion. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, they were certainly meatpuppets of each other. Good block. Basket of Puppies  20:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We are blocking people for attempting to correct an obvious error in our article? Perhaps it's more likely that there's collusion, but regardless now that we are pretty sure these are different people, wouldn't it be better to warn them, and, if really deemed necessary, block for a brief period, than to indef immediately? T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree about them being meatpuppets. Basket of Puppies  20:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is meatpuppetry, it is incredibly minor - two editors fixing the same mistake in an article doesn't seem to warrant an immediate indef. And given the situation, it doesn't seem to stretch AGF to assume that they fixed it independently. - Bilby (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that Fbadenho hasn't edited since May 19; I blocked three days later, and there's been nothing since then. If they want to be unblocked then they can request it, email the unblock list, or something. Until then, it seems like just a throwaway account. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think your assessment is correct. An editor is created, goes straight to this article, and then disappears. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So the assumption is that we can block, with no significant evidence, if it doesn't appear that the editor plans to edit again? I'm not comfortable with this approach. Keep in mind that the information was wrong, and that anyone involved in the institution (students or staff) would have wished to fix it given the significance of the mistake for them. - Bilby (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wrong", yes. But "libelous"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok guys...this is not the passing by comments for all users section. It's already being discussed between admins, give it a rest, no need for this to become a WP:BATTLEGROUND. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * - Placing on hold. See this dicussion. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  01:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever, it's not a big deal. I've unblocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)