Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matheweditking/Archive

05 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

WP:DUCK. User name, edits on Tokyo Game Show Neil N  talk to me 13:57, 5 August 2014 (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
Blocked him a few days ago, didn't realise it had been listed at SPI. Anyway I've tagged this as CU request in case it's worth looking for any more socks. If not, give it an archive. Jenks24 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * - --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sleeper check is a needle in a haystack. Not worth the time. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

27 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same kind of edits on Tokyo Game Show. In order:, ,

Hit same obscure article, 6-5=2 Neil N  talk to me 14:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * has also edited both articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Analysis for the reported diffs show a definite link between Sly kupar and Iamafoolha. Link between Smileyfrowney and Perumalmani can be seen by the interest in three mostly unrelated articles: vandalism to Ford Model T plus Tokyo Game Show and 6-5=2, I haven't check the smaller giveaways yet. Also regarding article coincidences (and the link between the two groups) Sly kupar has also edited 6-5=2 along with Matheweditking, Perumalmani and Smileyfrowney. Not enough for me to block (with the exception of Sly kupar and Iamafoolha which are WP:DUCK blockable now) but enough for a CU so . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are :
 * While from the information provided by the checkuser tool, the following account is :
 * For what's it worth, I concur the behavioural evidence linking to the other accounts is convincing enough for a block. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the accounts, with  as suspected instead of confirmed. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While from the information provided by the checkuser tool, the following account is :
 * For what's it worth, I concur the behavioural evidence linking to the other accounts is convincing enough for a block. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the accounts, with  as suspected instead of confirmed. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While from the information provided by the checkuser tool, the following account is :
 * For what's it worth, I concur the behavioural evidence linking to the other accounts is convincing enough for a block. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the accounts, with  as suspected instead of confirmed. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For what's it worth, I concur the behavioural evidence linking to the other accounts is convincing enough for a block. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the accounts, with  as suspected instead of confirmed. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * All set here. Mike V  •  Talk  23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)