Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msc008/Archive

12 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User created multiple accounts to sockpuppet in an AfD and hound another user. User is already blocked by one of his IPs for hounding and privacy violations: As blocks apply per user, not per account, his sock accounts should be blocked as well. He has now used multiple accounts and logged-out editing to !vote multiple times in an AfD:,,,,, this is clear sockpuppetry. Given the user's history of sockpuppetting on WP and other sites, it is reasonable to assume he will attempt to create and use more sock accounts, so I am submitting the above as a paper trail and starting point if an entire category needs to be created for the sockdrawer. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 22:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Given this diff: it looks like  should probably be added to this as well. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 00:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

seems connected as well from this diff:. Cheers, Pigman ☿/talk 02:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've only just crossed paths with this, but it's still obvious to me that WP:DUCK season is open. CU would still be nice to catch other accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with any of those other accounts, but it is pretty clear that if any collusion is going on here, which I strongly suspect, it much more likely concerns the partisans of keeping the article and not those of deleting it. As, indeed, one would expect, since those who wish to keep a POV article have a natural vested interest which those who wish to delete it do not have. I do not much care, it is just the first time in my life I read such an obviously biased WP article and a minimum sense of service to the community necessitated my flagging it.Fbunny (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have of off-site collusion for the "keep" votes? The delete votes are the ones coming out of no where with obvious sock and/or meat puppet accounts (you cannot deny that Wiggum is a sock for one of the above IPs, Helen Keller could see that). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was overreacting to being included in the scope of the accusation: I think it is pretty obvious from my contribution history that I have nothing to do with it and if the accusers took no pains to establish that, they seemed to me unreliable. Nevertheless I looked into it a bit more and it seems also to me plausible that some of the "delete" accounts may be linked, that is, the same person. I discussed on the AfD page the general problem here, so I won't repeat it. I do not have evidence, only it seems to be likely, because how else would all these people have become aware of the proposal to delete the page and reacted so quickly? But I do not think these are the same people, they are just members of a group of people who share a common perspective and an interest in maintaining the page which goes beyond its encyclopedic value.Fbunny (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The page was on my watchlist, and some of the socks were causing trouble on other pages I had watchlisted. That'd be the good faith assumption for most of the votes, except that a number of the one group of votes are single purpose accounts that have tried WP:OUTING one of the other side, forum shopping, and other disruptive behavior.  It's not the keep votes, either.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. Once again, my comments have nothing to do with an absence of good faith, as I explained on the AfD page. I am as displeased as anyone if my suggestion to delete the page has been hijacked by malicious users. Fbunny (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Looking at the edit histories of all concerned accounts, the only account named as a possible sock that might not be is. However, Fbunny is still quacking. User appears to have logged in to a sporadically-used (aka sleeper) account and gone straight to Plastic Shaman to put it up for AfD. This from an account with about 120 edits over 6 years, since October 2007, and over 20 of them in the last 5 days. The article is not one the Fbunny account has edited before, nor has Fbunny shown an interest in AfDs before. The Fbunny account does not appear to have ever edited any articles related to this one. This seems to me a clear sign of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Given the use of mobile devices and the precedence of WP:MEAT and WP:DUCK, the account cannot be ruled out on the sole reason it has not been blocked in the IP blocks that have affected the other named accounts. The identical obsessive focus and shared writing style is also highly suggestive that Fbunny is not separate from the sockdrawer, whether as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Cheers, Pigman ☿/talk 21:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - For confirmation of named accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, accepting per the copious evidence. I'm also linking in one IP here due to the egregious abuse. The following accounts are ✅ as being the same editor;



The accounts, and  are unrelated to each other or any of the other named accounts here -  A l is o n  ❤ 10:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Alison. Pigman's account of my activity is entirely biased and I reject it emphatically. The non sequiturs in his reasoning are breathtaking. I have an eclectic range of interests and I occasionally edit WP pages, but quite rarely. The only reason I jumped in on Plastic shaman is that it is so egregiously POV. The "20 edits" in the last 5 days are almost all on this subject and the various talk pages.Fbunny (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Both account confirmed by CU blocked and tagged. IP blocked for 2 weeks. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)