Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manmountain08/Archive

14 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Manmountain08 has a habit of changing the infoboxes in articles on Royal New Zealand Air Force squadrons to state that they have a size of "one squadron" (examples, ), and that units of the force give allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II as the Queen of NZ (examples , , , ,. They have engaged in sustained edit warring on this and other RNZAF-related topics, and make no use of edit summaries and talk pages (as demonstrated by their edits). I've asked them twice to stop doing this as it's not what those infobox fields are intended for (14 July),  (today, 8 August), and have removed the edits.

Straight after the second warning today the Onduty44 account became active and started reinstating the material I'd removed, ,. This seems to obviously be the same person, and is a significant escalation of their edit warring, and I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could look into the matter. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Further edit warring from the Onduty44 account after the above was lodged:, , , Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There's been even more edit warring from the Onduty44 account (,, etc) and the Manmountain08 remains active , so this isn't a case of the editor abandoning one account for a new one. Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Now Manmountain08 has taken up the edit warring with a vengeance, , ,. Sorry for the drama-board style updates, but this is very clear per WP:DUCK. Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I've added an IP address per comment on my talk page.- gadfium 05:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Compare the two based on provided diffs.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you endorsed a CU, has blocked the puppet account indefinitely for disruptive editing and blocked the master for one week for sock puppetry. The case is pretty obvious, and other than tagging, I'm not sure what else needs to be done here. Personally, I would have considered indeffing the master as well, but I'm not sure I want to override the Gadfium's decision. To elaborate a bit, the accounts belong to the same person. If one account deserves to be indeffed, not as a puppet, but for disruptive editing, then so does the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Admin action needed - Seams that he continues to evade the block using the IP (compare and ). The IP should be blocked for three days.  Really, if you blocked Onduty44 indefinitely because of the disruptive editing, why didn't you also block Manmountain08 indefinitely?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  23:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it was standard acceptable to block a sockpuppet indefinitely but the master for a limited time so long as the master is making some proportion of good edits. I might be wrong about Manmountain making some good edits as the edits are in an area I have no expertise.- gadfium 23:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on how confident you are that the master and the puppet are the same person. If you're confident, then you take the totality of the edits with both accounts to determine whether the master should be blocked indefinitely. If you're not, then you would probably block the master for a limited time. Also, bear in mind that if the totality of their edits is of little benefit to the project, which is apparently what you found in your indefinite block of the puppet, and you block the master indefinitely, they still have an opportunity to persuade an administrator that they are not socks and therefore don't deserve to be blocked as an account.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No answer, and the IP stopped editing. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)