Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Media Studies lecturer/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Diff 1; Diff 2; Diff 3 Diff 4. 4 different users with no prior edit history all extremely determined to ensure that a specific version of the article is retained. All users have only ever made edits to this article or to this article's talk page. I believe that separate accounts are being used by the same person in order to avoid accusations of edit warring. CheckUser evidence is required to ascertain whether these new accounts making identical edits to the same page as their first and only course of action are in any way linked. Domeditrix (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Sophie Mills and User:Media Studies lecturer were both created two years ago and remained unused until recent edits to Layla Moran; they've only made recent edits to this page. They make similar comments on the talk page, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Layla_Moran&diff=prev&oldid=891103356&diffmode=source and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Layla_Moran&diff=prev&oldid=890958898&diffmode=source although without very many comments, it's difficult to say for sure the style is the same. Mostly it's just the similar creation date and long inactivity followed by only editing on this page that's suspicious. Mvolz (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to say, this is 100% political. Please review the talk page of the article on question and what I mean will be as clear as day. You need to be investigating dominatrix. The username alone should be cause for alarm! Media Studies lecturer (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ... Domeditrix (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC) – not dominatrix

Some more similarities in comments:
 * User:Sophie Mills makes an allegation that I am in league with admins to silence any dissent: "[Domeditrix] is now trying leverage their contacts (or socks) and weed out opponents to their point of view from the talk page". (Supporting diff.) That same argument is then put forward by User:Media Studies lecturer on a completely separate page: "having your mate range block the IPs that disagree with you". (Supporting diff 2.)


 * User:Sophie Mills makes an allegation that edits made that the user disagrees with must be politically motivated to obfuscate something: "given the sensitive political nature of the page". (Supporting diff.) That same argument is put forward on by User:Media Studies lecturer on two completely separate pages: "Less flattering, perhaps, but facts are the currency here, not spin." (Supporting diff 3.) "Just to say, this is 100% political." (Supporting diff 4.)

Both also make identical, quite novel and specific arguments in favour of keeping specific content on a page:
 * User:Sophie Mills: "it is a very relevant case study in terms of the media consequences of domestic violence". (Supporting diff 5.)
 * User:Media Studies lecturer: "it is a fascinating case study on media representations of misandry and violent actions by women against men". (Supporting diff 6.) Domeditrix (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CheckUser - we cannot publicly reveal any connection between a named account and IP addresses. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that there is a second account listed, I will leave this for a clerk's evaluation. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP addresses are both in the range 2607:FEA8:BE60:28E::/64, which also shows some other older edits to that page. The IP range was blocked by Bbb23 for 3 months as a checkuserblock. ST47 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * After looking at more recent activity, I agree that the user accounts are related. Both accounts have been blocked. ST47 (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)