Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morty C-137/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

D.Pearson is a new account whose only actions have been to defend Morty-137 on United Daughters of the Confederacy, reverting the page to continue Morty-137's edit war when it would have brought them into violation of 3RR:

On the talk page, D.Pearson simply repeated what Morty-137 had said, and neglected to sign his comment, something which Morty-137 consistently forgets to do:   Cjhard (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' This is ridiculous, especially given Cjhard's Harassment behavior. I have nothing to do with that account. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Second the report I was just about to make the same referral. Morty-137 has been edit-warring to insert disputed material into the article United Daughters of the Confederacy. He added it three times June 3   and three times June 4. (He's probably blockable for EW at this point but I thought I would wait for the outcome of the SPI.) After his third edit June 4, a brand new SPA user named D.Pearson appeared and did exactly the same insertion and made the same arguments at the talk page. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me but since the user has no history of socking I feel an investigation is warranted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The accused has been targeted by socks (Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110) so this may be a joe job. A CU would be very useful. --Neil N  talk to me 23:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * /.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So we'll have to mainly rely on behavior., any thoughts on what to do here with the purported master and sock? --Neil N  talk to me 00:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bummer. You raised the possibility that this could be a joe job - a phony, all-too-obvious DUCK of Morty. I hate to block anybody based on suspicion when there are several possible masters. How about this: block the suspected sock without specifying who it is a sock of. Based on behavior, it's almost certainly a sock of somebody. As for Morty's edit warring, that is an issue for another venue. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was thinking. You want to hit the block button or shall I? --Neil N  talk to me 01:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Now what happens to this report? It seems a shame to create an SPI archive for a person when nothing was proven against them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've marked it as closed. All SPI reports created in good faith should be kept so there's a history for future reference (for potential joe jobs, harassment reports, legitimate socking concerns, etc.) --Neil N  talk to me 01:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)