Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawson1129/Archive

19 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets

please note that this case was originally opened at Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970 and was moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Lawson1129 post-archive




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

I came across Lawson1129 and Harvestflamingo when I commented on this Afd discussion and they look highly suspicious.

Both only have one edit, neither signed their posts, and Lawson1129 even copied my signature. It seems immediately apparent that they are related to FergusM1970, as he was the one who launched the deletion nomination and additionally voted on his own nomination, which is highly unusual and arguably disingenuous behavior.


 * FergusM1970's first follow-up edit on the AfD as well as their most recent, which also served as a vote in favor of their nomination
 * Lawson1129's sole edit
 * Harvestflamingo's sole edit

I had never come across him before, but I can see that this is the third time he has been involved in a sockpuppet investigation. This violation seems obvious (at least it seems that way to me) and I would argue WP:DUCK that he is abusing WP:SOCK. This behavior is not only noticed by me as this is the third nomination. If these are related, I can only assume that he is using a different IP address to make the edits, which would explain why nothing came of the last two investigations. He has been blocked several times as well, his talk page is littered with incidents of incivility, and it is hard to WP:AGF.

I also noticed that the page up for nomination (for the second time) has had a few issues of it's own. It apparently had lawyers involved and some users have already been blocked (FinanceReferee, Arctic M, ChanceryLanePartners, Jarrodjones). It might be worth checking to see if there is any connection between those confirmed socks and Lawson1129, Harvestflamingo, and FergusM1970. Dreambeaver (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Both suspected socks were created apparently for the sole purpose of !voting in the same AfD to agree with FergusM1970. Both suspected socks have made only one edit each, to the AfD in question [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=538856507] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=538693537], each minutes after account creation [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=Harvestflamingo] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=Lawson1129]. FergusM1970 him/herself has shown an intent to push for the deletion of the article even against opposition, arguing against both keep !votes and casting a duplicate !vote him/herself, making it not unlikely that he/she might resort to socks after finding him/herself alone on the delete side of the debate. Harvestflamingo and Lawson1129 are almost certainly socks of each other, given the similar errors in link formatting in their signatures, but whether they are FergusM1970 is unclear. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not see the above report since I used Twinkle from the user's user page. I still think this is worth looking into more; if the user has simply created a couple of single-use throwaway socks, then there may be more buried in the drawer. At the very least, Harvestflamingo and Lawson1129 are likely related to each other. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Earlier socks' last edits are stale, so nothing likely to be gained by a CU. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * - Partially changing my mind here after taking another look at the request; edits by Lawson1129 and Harvestflamingo are recent, so a CU may be helpful here; still not recommending CU on FinanceReferee, Arctic M, ChanceryLane, or Jarrodjones because their edits are stale. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Noting lack of diffs; however, since the two alleged sockpuppets have only one edit each, this omission might be forgiven this time. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merged two reports on this page for ease of use. Courcelles 04:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After a sudden computer crash, I can say that, , and are ✅, and that Harvestflamingo  is geographically similar to the others, while the listed master is in a different country, but this is one where behaciour could be enough to convince in spite of the CU results. Courcelles 04:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they're the same - both are bringing up the same points about attack and notability. Blocked master 1 week, socks indef. Rschen7754 09:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

21 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets

please note that this case was originally opened at Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970 and was moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Lawson1129


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

This is closely related to the prior case as the username came up on the same AfD. Harvestflamingo and Lawson1129 both came in, edited exclusively on Articles for deletion/Derwick Associates (2nd nomination), and were subsequently blocked as socks of FergusM1970. Createmark has since registered and made edits exclusively on this page (see Createmark's first edit). It seems to fall right in line with Obvious sock is obvious. Dreambeaver (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively it could be said to fall under paranoia. Can I respectfully request that, next time someone agrees with me, you sit down and take a deep breath before demanding a sockpuppet investigation? Thank you and enjoy your weekend.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:31, 22 February 2013 (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

 * - The previous CU in the archive came up inconclusive, as did the one before that, actually. Requesting a third checkuser to see if any more light can be shone on this situation. For evidence, Createmark's only edits are to an AFD that Fergus was just blocked for socking on. Fergus is presently claiming innocence on his talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * - I need to confer with another CU before posting any results. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I can say with some certainty that, , and are ✅ as one another and that  is ❌ to any of the above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, after going over this with another CU, I believe that Courcelles's results in the last case were misunderstood. While Lawson1129, et. al. are the same, I found that FergusM1970 is ❌ to any of the other accounts in this and the archived cases and, unless there are extenuating circumstances, their block should be lifted. I can't, of course, rule out meatpuppetry, but there very little chance that FergusM1970 is operating any of the other accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * this is seemingly being dealt with at User talk:FergusM1970 as an unblock request. I'll leave this case open in the meantime, so as the outcome can be recorded before archiving (additionally, if the outcome is that Fergus is not a sock, this case should possibly be moved). SpitfireTally-ho! 18:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked FergusM1970 since there isn't enough behavioral evidence to go off alone. --Rschen7754 21:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * closing this case. Will archive it under Sockpuppet investigations/Lawson1129 per conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to show that Fergus is related SpitfireTally-ho! 21:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)