Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Metal.lunchbox/Archive

28 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I strongly believe that this is meatpuppetry, both of these users have a very obvious agenda to delete the same articles they don't want on Wikipedia. I have seen metal lunchbox and duffbeerforme in three AfDs I have been a part of now. In every AfD I have participated in with them they have always agreed with eachother to delete the page, for example: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Død Beverte (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (3rd nomination), and WP:Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (2nd nomination). duffbeerforme recently has canvassed metal lunchbox to join AfDs for articles in which the first edits by metal lunchbox where either opening an AfD for the article, or attempting an unjustified Speedy deletion of the article. During the latest AfD, after the debate was closed duffbeerforme went to the closing user's talk page, and asked him or her to reconsider closing the article. Once the AfD was reopened, metal lunchbox re-adds the banner, and puts a notice on the closing editor's page the let them know that people reading the article wouldn't know that the AfD was reopened. The day after the AfD was reopened, a keep vote is given, and metal lunchbox and duffbeerforme give their rebuttals to the remark, and seeing as no other users involved in the AfD respond the their rebuttals and I saw information I knew to be false in them, I stepped in and responded. Within 5 hours of my rebuttal, I have a response to my comment from duffbeerforme, and I along with everyone else who voted keep was placed under investigation for being one sock puppet by duffbeerforme. The same user was previously placed under investigation by metal lunchbox. I'm beginning to feel that these users are so quick to cite rules, accuse others of violations, and pretend to respect those who disagree with them simply to avoid having their collaboration discovered, and I feel that the odds that these edits by these two users being so similar in nature by coincidence are very slim, and while some of these details seem subtle, I think that when taken into account along with all the other evidence, the amount of collaborative activity certainly seems suspicious. BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:15, 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

 * These accounts are not new at all - they each have at least 2000 edits. They may know each other, but that's not really sufficient grounds to block them outright. Relist if they start abusing accounts by getting around 3RR or heavily votestacking or something. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)