Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lane99/Archive

22 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I am currently in a Dispute resolution process over an article. Suddenly two more accounts pops up writing in the exact same way as Lane99 (long and in the same tone). I just want to make sure that all three are not used as sockpuppets to make the appearance of consensus. This interaction is also suspicious, here are other diffs of the case , ,. All three accounts writes minutes after each other at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard which is also suspicious. BabbaQ (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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

This is a amusing personal attack that is not only without merit, but it is clear the person who made it did so carelessly and gratuitously and without any reasonable evidence. In fact, the persons BabbaQ alleges are sockpuppets for the purpose of creating the "appearance of consensus" not only don't agree with each other, they are in vehement DIS-agreement. For the record, BabbaQ's contribution to the dispute resolution process he refers to was no more helpful than this nonsense here.

I also am not aware of having been notified of this process, and find that disturbing. I've only come across it, more or less by chance, in tracing back one of the rude, snarky comments (that made no mention of this "investigation") that I was unfortunate enough to receive from BabbaQ on my "personal talk" page.Lane99 (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm declining this case due to insufficient evidence needed to perform a check. As pointed out, Lane99 and Dewanifacts are at ends about the content of the article. Any further requests should show a sufficient number of diffs that specifically link one or more accounts to another through similar behavior. We can't act upon suspicion. Mike V • Talk 22:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

02 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Bishonen &#124; talk 19:02, 2 December 2015 (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
Filing for the record only. CU confirmed by User:Ponyo. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

05 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Persistent claiming that Murder of Anni Dewani is biased because of supposed judicial finding that it was a murder for hire. (In fact, the claim that is was a murder for hire is based on false confessions by lying criminals.)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=708457489 Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Same claim by sockmaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Anni_Dewani&diff=prev&oldid=690541189

Basic behavior is repeatedly claiming that it is a proven fact that the Murder of Anni Dewani was a murder for hire. While the murderers confessed that it was a murder for hire, their testimony fell apart in S. v. Dewani, the trial of her widower, who was charged with having hired them. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Insufferable comment: not sure if CU is necessary, because they can just be blocked on behavior. GABHello! 20:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've declined the CU request. We rarely publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * .&#32;In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  20:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I can see, this IP has not edited any page that was edited by Lane99. So, there is not real sockpuppetry here. I'm closing this case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

09 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

See this diff by sockpuppet IP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=709048553&oldid=709047861

Essentially the same as this diff by sockmaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Anni_Dewani&diff=prev&oldid=682147337

Pattern of maintaining that it is a proven fact that the Murder of Anni Dewani was a murder for hire. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * It is true that the IP has not edited Murder of Anni Dewani, but the IP is complaining to User:Jimbo Wales about the Murder of Anni Dewani. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This IP range probably belong to Lane99, but there was no activity since 8 march, so I'm closing this.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The sockmaster, User:Lane99, has been banned for persistently insisting that Murder of Anni Dewani was a murder for hire and that the article is biased because it does not stress that fact. This was a typical argument by Lane99: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMurder_of_Anni_Dewani&type=revision&diff=682147337&oldid=682083178 This is the argument by Advocate the 2nd: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMurder_of_Anni_Dewani&type=revision&diff=729838450&oldid=729748384

Checkuser may not be feasible because Lane99 hasn't edited in months, due to being blocked, but the quacking is clear. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 15 July 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

 * CU request declined. Everything's .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing without action. This was a close call. There's only one edit to look at by Advocate the 2nd, so evidence is extremely scarce. While it looks suspicious and there are some unusual aspects, it does not fulfill my standard of proof. Feel free to refile if additional evidence surfaces. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)