Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mick63/Archive

Evidence submitted by Shakehandsman
All accounts are exclusively used for editing the articles Ann Keen and to a lesser extent the article for her husband Alan Keen. All accounts have the same pattern of completely removing sections concerning expenses controversies from the articles, despite the fact they are accurate, balance and well sourced and there is a consensus that they are highly notable. The only exception is the account "Robin Ghandi", which whitewashed the section instead of blanking it completely. The account 10samuel is of the most concern by far as it has only come into being following a block being put on Mick63 and it the most likely candidate for being a sockpuppet due to timing and style of editing. Most of the accounts edit at similar times of the day, in particular just after mid-day GMT and around 11pm to 12pm GMT--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Shakehandsman (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC) endorsed for checkuser on accounts 10samuel, Alankeenmp Robin Ghandi and Mick63, but not for 194.60.38.10, as the IP has not been involved in editing Ann Keen or Alan Keen. SpitfireTally-ho! 19:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Robin Ghandi and Alankeenmp are . Tim Song (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * These accounts geolocate to the same basic area, but no closer connection is available in the currently available technical evidence.

-- Avi (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Closed as no action. Thanks Avi. Nathan  T 14:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Shakehandsman
Both User:Mick63 and 67.247.175.30 almost exclusively remove well sourced content from the Ann Keen article (usually blanking whole sections), making claims the data is somehow "not true" even though is clearly not the case. Types of terminology used are very similar too, for example both suggesting the information is "biased" and "political" / "politically motivated". Similarly user:Mick63 suggests edits have been made in order to "smear" Keen with 67.247.175.30 stating the content "was written by Ann's opponents". The only other article edited is one single edit to the Alan Keen article by Mick63, again exhibiting exactly the same type of behaviour. Both users completely ignore warnings about their behaviour, offering no defence and repeating the same removals of content.

User:10Samnuel also deleted the same content, and in particular has the same insistence as 67.247.175.30 that Keen did not employ her son despite all sources contradicting this. Similarly, warnings are ignored and edits repeated. Shakehandsman (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed I've previously reported User:10Samnuel. Maybe just focus on the IP address?

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Checkuser . For privacy reasons, we will not use checkuser to connect an IP address to an account except in cases of severe and continuing abuse. Since it seems the account is acting rather duckish and has a history, the only real question here is the IP address, which will need to be done based on behavioral evidence. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This really quacked to me, both the account and the IP. I'm blocking the sockpuppet account indefinitely, and the IP for a month. --  At am a  頭 20:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)