Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kwisso/Archive

Report date January 19 2009, 09:04 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

I suspect this user to be a sockmaster. My reasons are because after this article got deleted. The author recreated it which also got deleted. Afterwards, they decided to insert the same material into an article that was linked to it. After this was reverted by self, another editor started doing the same. This inturn got reverted. I checked the history of the article and noticed that other users had attempted to add the same content.


 * Evidence submitted DFS454 (talk)

Predominanantly Behavioural Characteristics on this article:

  ]

| On the 18th of Jan
 * Account Creation

| On the 12th of Jan

DFS454 (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Null edit to trigger the bot: ——  nix eagle email me 14:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Another random test... sorry for hijacking this for testing the new CUClerk bot. ——  nix eagle email me 14:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

reformated and removed alleged master from socks Mayalld (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

given that the behaviour is not continuing, the alleged sockmaster has been invited to confirm or deny this. We may (or may not) be looking at a non-malicious case here. Mayalld (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Based entirely on behavioural evidence, it seems entirely possible that we have two editors acting together on the article (I will assume that the IP is one of the editors logged out, and that this editing whilst logged out was without any intent to decieve). Whether this is two people known to each other who share a common aim, or whether this is sufficiently directed to constitute meat-puppetry is unclear. However, it is clear that the disruptive behaviour which had stopped shortly before the report was raised has not commenced again, and that the editor(s) concerned are not currently engaged in disruption.
 * Conclusions

Without prejudice to re-opening if this starts again, I think that we can WP:AGF and put this down to a couple of friends both wanting to add this information whilst being unaware of policy. As such, no blocks are needed here Mayalld (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety talk 20:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)