Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NestleNW911/Archive

28 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Summary: I suspect that NestleNW911 may be using multiple accounts to evade a one year topic ban on any article related to Scientology. I first became suspicious during a conversation on the scientology talk page between Scifilover386, several other editors and myself. NestleNW911 suddenly jumped into the conversation, replying to Thimbleweed's comment to Scifilover386, with the statement "I disagree that we can disregard my point altogether." Prior to this, NestleNW911 had not commented on this thread at all. Two editors commented on the slip BTfromLA, and Thimbleweed. NestleNW911 replied that "I was mearly supporting Scifilovers argument and providing input" and stated that they meant to say "I disagree we can disregard 'his' point altogether." However after this slip, Scifilover386 suddenly disappeared for over a year. At a conversation on my talk page, BTfromLA and myself discussed possible ways of moving forward, but I decided not to move forward because as of that time there was no other interactions between the two editors, and therefore no actual disruption.
 * Abusive use of multiple accounts: Using multiple accounts to avoid a topic ban on Scientology related articles
 * Evidence of evasion, , ,.
 * Evidence of multiple accounts
 * 1) Nestle's first post on a thread responds to comment directed to Scifilover386 with "I disagree that we can disregard my point altogether." in first person voice.
 * 2) Both accounts were SPA's until Nestle got topic banned with the suggestion that they start editing other articles. Since that comment was posted, suddenly both accounts are editing outside of scientology, when previously those were the only areas of interest.
 * Narrative of events

Both accounts were spa's focused on Scientology as scientologists. This changed when it was pointed out that the SPA focus didn't serve nestle well in the investigation that got them topic banned. After that point, Nestle started editing outside of the scientology area, and when Scifilover386 returned from their year long disappearance two months later they started editing non-scientology articles for the first time as well. Their edit history seems to jib back and forth when it comes to days that they edit, with only March 13 and April 3 where both accounts are active on the same day.

I would like to have another set of eyes on this one and see if my instincts are correct that NestleNW911 is using the account Scifilover386 to avoid a topic ban.

Coffeepusher (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2013‎ (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 agree there is reasonable cause here to investigate whether these accounts are being used by the same person, and whether there are sleepers waiting in the wings. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Named accounts are ✅. Clerks/patrolling admins should also be aware of this earlier case involving NestleNW911. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend that Scifilover386 be indefinitely blocked as a sock of NestleNW11, and that Nestle himself be blocked one month for sockpuppetry and ban evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Agree fully - evasion of a topic ban is pathetic. I don't typically patrol here ... not sure the appropriate closure activities (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 22:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)