Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarcEdelmanFan/Archive

28 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Abundantly provided by the history of Marc Edelman. In these edits, EdelmanFan adds a Facebook group and some thoroughly unencyclopedic comments about the subject's supposed popularity, which I removed, and which were reinstated here, here, here, and here by the IP, which I subsequently blocked for edit warring and adding unreliable (and silly) BLP information. I left them a note saying I'd start an SPI, after which EdelmanFan reinserted it again. Note also that IP's only other edits are to Sanford H. Calhoun High School, where they did nothing but add Edelman and the Facebook group ; same as EdelmanFan. This is tiresome, disruptive, and rather childish. I sure hope this isn't Edelman himself, but it'd be just as bad if it were one of his students. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC) No, this is definitely not Marc Edelman, it's just a disruptive (and really bored) fan. My views and/or edits expressed on this page do not reflect his or anyone else associated with him. My apologies for being so disruptive. I had no idea Wikipedia was so hardcore. Please feel free to delete my account. MarcEdelmanFan (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Disruption is ongoing. I was on the verge of blocking him, but I prefer someone else ("uninvolved") do this. Likewise with the reverts. The Fan is at, I don't know, a gazillionRR. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2012 (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
CUs do not associate accounts with IP addresses publicly. WilliamH (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP and account are blocked, so I'll mark for close. TN X Man  16:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

29 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both names editors and the IP are editing to include fancruft at Marc Edelman and Talk:Marc Edelman. The IP was blocked for disruption at 21:19, 28 January and MEF on 22:23, 28 January 2012. SLJ started editing 18:03, 29 January 2012. A clear case of block evasion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And now has turned up at Articles for deletion/Marc Edelman, the first and only edit of this "new" user being in the same style as .  This looks like an attempt at !vote-stacking at that AFD.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2012 (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
Declining the CU request - if it's clear then there's no need to check. WilliamH (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but I am thinking that the editor changed his tune, and is singing a bit differently as SportsJunky. Since they're not adding the Facebook group, for instance, I'm hesitant to block for quacking, so I would like CU, please. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: a different song, but I noticed one editing idiosyncrasy--the use of hard line breaks. Who's willing to block on the basis of this evidence? I would, but I'm a bit involved. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would vouch for CU. There are enough differences it would probably be worth it. NativeForeigner Talk 01:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . WilliamH, I don't think it's clear-cut enough to make a call one way or the other, but it's at least curious enough to warrant a check, I think. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ that is.
 * , on geographical grounds, that is the same person.
 * -- Luk  talk 11:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * SportsLawJunky blocked and tagged per the findings; master blocked 3 days. Winterparker only edited once, so I'm going to let it go for now. Relist as necessary. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

06 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I believe WP:DUCK applies, but it might be best to checkuser in case it might show this is not the same party. The quack is recreation of deleted the article Marc Edelman. This closely follows disruptive socking during the AfD by at least two WP:SPA; I believe this account was used to evade a block currently in place for the sock master (see: Articles for deletion/Marc Edelman). JFHJr (㊟) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (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 deleted article is different, but I'm endorsing to confirm. If they're the same, then the master's block should be extended. I've also salted the Marc Edelman article. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ a straight match. as well. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the master as a sockpuppeteer. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)