Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kyndigs/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

In this diff Kyndigs advised he would use IP's and or create other accounts should he be blocked. He was blocked by John Reaves on 15 June 2017. In this diff material that Kyndigs edit warred over was re-added. The ip also target articles that Kyndigs was aware I created

The second ip again carried out similar edits

This is evidence based and given that Kyndigs initiated his intentions to sock puppet a check user to ensure no further accounts have been created may be useful. Blethering  Scot  18:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)  Blethering   Scot  18:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Hmmm, not sure what this is regarding, I was only blocked for two days, since I was unblocked I have not contributed those changes I made, I have instead opted to discuss their feasibility instead of edit warring, I think the case here is BletheringScot disagrees with me on many points so is trying to get me banned. This account will most frequently ever be accessed from 2 IP address, one being home and one work, which are all Singapore based IP address as I currently live and work here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndigs (talk • contribs) 00:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all I'm not trying to get you banned. You clearly indicated your intention to sock and both these IP's are editing in the exact same manner as you do, so from a behavioural point of you this is clearly a valid investigation. Had you not indicated that if you were banned you full intended to sock we wouldn't be here. Blethering  Scot  20:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your agenda is pretty clear, which is fine, i get it, you don't like my contributions, I get a consensus and it upsets you so you try to get me banned once again. Take care. Kyndigs (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
CU declined. We don't publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts, and the stated rationale for the CU is unjustified unless there is actual evidence of another named account.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both IPs independent of the socking allegations. 81.171.59.54 belongs to a VPN server, and 84.39.112.49 is a webhost. A clerk or administrator should do a behavioral analysis to see if the master should be sanctioned, and, if so, what the sanction should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * He threatens to evade his block, and then IP editors on VPNs show up in the same topic area to restore his edits? Yeah, I think that's a bit obvious.  Blocked for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User has admitted in his talk page that Sulcage is an account he used to edit during the time he used socks during previous block. Although he stated was an accident it edited Celtic accounts in the same manner as the blocked master. He was asked directly about account usage between 14-15 June. Blethering  Scot  18:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)  Blethering   Scot  18:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is procedural so gets added to the record. Blethering  Scot  20:18, 24 June 2017 (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'm going to block it without tags since he says it's an abandoned account used accidentally. We don't need any more questionably accidental sock puppetry coming from it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)