Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen/Archive

13 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All of these accounts have made similar comments at Articles for deletion/Salty Fingers (plant) claiming notability without engaging with arguments presented, all were created since the start of that discussion, and all began editing by creating user and/or user talk pages with very similar content. I note that User:MountWassen, the first of these ids created, declares an interest in both computing and cuisine, interests also held in common by both User:Akolyth and User:VictorVautier, who had previously commented in the AfD discussion. Cuisine is understandable, given the topic of the discussion, but it seems to be a strange coincidence that they are all also interested in computing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that all four of these accounts also made similar comments at Articles for deletion/Landing Gear (arcade game). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 13 October 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

 * I hear loud quacking here, but in view of an AfD possibly being compromised perhaps a CU could clear things up. Any offers to request one? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Requested it myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * - some overlap, and the first edits of all of these users are very sockish, changing redlinks to bluelinks. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * - --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On hold pending further investigation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following - Group 1:
 * - Please see my note below


 * ✅ the following - Group 2:


 * The connection between group 1 and group two is User:Gamsbart, who is a long term project user (including dewiki, although blocked). I'm absolutely sure that group 1 is related to one another other, but while Gamsbart is ✅ to group 2, I am not as easy to accept the results by the type of IP address that it's confirmed on. I did initially attempt to contact Gamsbart via talkpage, but since I have received nothing in my email, and the user continues to edit, I can only assume that the user does not wish to speak with me. I of course would be absolutely open to a second CU opinion if a clerks wishes, though I do ask that any reviewing CU talks to me for some information that I gathered in my investigation. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks as if at  least  one AfD has been compromised by  these socks, so  before I  (or another admin) proceeds with  blocking  and asks the AfD closer to  review the consensus, it  would be good if the CUs could confer and make a statement  here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * - T. Canens (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the checkuser data and concur with DeltaQuad's conclusions regarding Group 2 and the connection between the groups. The two redlinked accounts in Group 1 have recently gone stale, so I cannot check them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the checkusers are apparently uneasy about the technical connection between the two groups and because I couldn't find any convincing behavioral similarities between them, I've treated them as two unrelated groups. Gamsbart et al are focused on German biographies and Bavarian themes while group 2 is heavily focused on video gaming and IT topics. So let's first deal with group 2: I have declared Akolyth the sockmaster since this is the oldest account; the others are clearly SPAs related almost entirely to quite a number of deletion discussions. Akolyth has been blocked one month while the other accounts in this group have been indeffed. The following Afds will need review by the closing admins because more than one sock in this list has participated or the number of participants including one sock was rather low with a narrow consensus:
 * Articles for deletion/Salty Fingers (plant) — Resolved. De728631 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Nepal Internet Exchange — Resolved. De728631 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Digitel Tower — Resolved. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Landing Gear (arcade game) — The closing admin has already commented here. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Windows CE 3.0
 * Articles for deletion/Forefront Protection Server Management Console — Resolved. De728631 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Forefront Protection for Exchange Server — Resolved. De728631 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Forefront Protection for SharePoint Server — Resolved. De728631 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now for group 1, I have declared Gamsbart the sockmaster and blocked the two alternate accounts, Gamsbart himself has been left unblocked since I cannot find any abusive use of his two other accounts. I've left him a message though. Gamsbart's account at de.wiki has been blocked on his own request in 2009 following a dispute where he apparently decided to leave the project. Although Akolyth registered shortly after Gamsbart was gone over there, I can't find any similar interests at the German WP either. De728631 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We have conflicting opinions here, and I need clarity before I split this up. DQ and DoRD seem to think the two groups are related, De728631 doesn't.  I haven't reviewed enough to have an opinion, but since it isn't that difficult to believe someone would use different socks for different purposes, I'm not inclined to completely discount a link based solely on a couple of behavioral aspects.  This will affect whether or not Gamsbart needs blocking or not, so will the two CUs please offer some guidance and a final ruling here, so it can be blocked/closed or split off? Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Gamsbart has now discovered the message I left him. I.e. instead of commenting on the SPI he just blanked his talk page. I don't like the smack of it. De728631 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find some extra time to go back through things. In the mean time, a third CU is welcome to comment. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Third opinion
 * I'm really no seeing a compelling reason to separate the groups. One of the IPs lies in a clearly static corporate range, the user agents are strictly identical but not unique in the range, and the accounts alternate without overlapping.  As far as I'm concerned, both groups are ✅ to be equivalent.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've now attributed all accounts to Gamsbart per Coren's findings. Not sure though about the appropriate block length for Gamsbart. Now that it has been established that he blatantly used a number of accounts for gaming the system (AfDs) there is of course the possibility of repeated socking. I would think a longer block should be warranted but perhaps not indef. Any admins or checkusers are welcome to weigh in or just take action. De728631 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why Gamsbart should not be indeffed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, since he did make some useful contributions with his main account I was reluctant about indef. But in the end I've now opted for indef, leaving the usual unblock options. Let's close this report and be done with it. De728631 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)