Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Natsecobserver/Archive

25 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Natsecso warned for adding original research, new account shows up shortly afterwards adding the same material  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 22:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Epeefleche

Yes -- the quacking is quite loud here. Seems like a clear case of socking, IMHO. Note as well -- there is a flurry of activity by these 2 new (in the case of one) or fairly new (in the case of the other) users with the precise same approach today, both at the article page and now on its talk page.

I've added a 3rd suspected puppet; an IP whose edits are to the suspected master's articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding to the below by the subject of this inquiry -- please note, the investigation/claim was not initiated by me, but by another editor (though I agree with it). Also, as reflected on the subject's talkpage and at the articles he has edited, a number of editors other than me have noted issues with his editing.  At the same time, I find his admission below that several user accounts have edited the same article from the same IP address to be of interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Answering DQ -- I think it is quite possible that User:Albenn will come up from a checkuser, but I'm not as certain on that as on the others.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by natsecobserver

The claim of sockpuppetry is specious, and it would seem plausible this claim has been made by Epeefleche in "bad faith" in an effort to counter the legitimacy of updates to another article about the Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation. Please note that Epeefleche made several attempts to remove updates I made to this article; these updates entailed removing dated information pursuant to review of the About Page contained on the organization's website. Additional updates removed by Epeefleche included entries which referenced sources such as documents released to the public by government organizations like the IRS and Secretary of State of South Carolina. While adjustments to the article about Michael S. Smith II have been made by several user accounts from the same IP address, these activities do not constitute an example of sockpuppetry as defined by Wikipedia.--natsecobserver (talk)08:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Who else are we talking about for possible sock/meat blocks? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  13:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody, but these two are ✅. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the sock; blocked the master 24h. Unsurprisingly, the IP is autoblocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * already blocked sock
 * already blocked sock


 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Master was a SPA for Michael S. Smith II and was blocked twice - first temporarily for socking (old SPI) then for being here only to promote Smith.

Proposed sock is also a SPA for Smith and content style as well as edit note style are exactly the same as the master. This diff contained unsourced information that Smith was "briefly in" a PhD program; there is no source that says he left the program. Note the edit note there, and the complex and somewhat OR citation, which is similar to this diff by the master, for example.

Same desire to force in references to a report by Smith being entered into the Congresssional Record - diff by master, diff by sock.

There were two prior COIN reports, Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_100 and Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_112. This person had the chutzpah to ask someone else if they had a COI (diff).

Very obvious conflicted promotional editing and socking. No need for a CU in my view. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2018 (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

 * - Evidence is compelling. Please indef sock. Sro23 (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I blocked indef per Sro23's request. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Marking this case as closed because it appears there is nothing more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)