Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newbritainlover/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The accounts listed have had solely a fascination with the Erin Stewart article since its original inception as Erin Stewart (politician). On Newbritainlover's talk page, they were notified the article would be deleted. According to User:Valenciano/CSD log/archive2 (Number 32) this was carried out but reinstated once Erin Stewart became mayor. Because the article in question was originally deleted had copyrighted material, I do not have access to the article's history (just that it was deleted in 2005). The outcome of the original article is unknown beyond that it would become a redirect for the main Erin Stewart page.

Eventually, however, someone calling themselves Eestewart created and edited this page on Erin Stewart in 2015. They would post on George8211's talk page, claim to not be Erin Stewart, and then went dorment.

In a few months, DRH2015 would post on the article talk page "Hello, Can someone..." Interestingly, this double capitalization of the first two words can be found in the previously mentioned comment on George's talk page, "George, Can you..." With one exception, all DRH2015's contributions have related to the Erin Stewart page. The exception was a section contribution to New Britain, Connecticut.

A year later, ErinE.Stewart would surface with a minor edit to article. This has an obvious similarity to the previously mentioned, Eestewart. Odd about this is the name that Eestewart asked the Erin Stewart page be named to.

CheckUser is needed to verify evidence through IP Addresses of these accounts to see if there is any real relation. I believe them to belong to one person due to the fixation of these users with the Erin Stewart article and (where evidence is found) similar styles of editing. Newbritainlover has violated copyright policy in the past, and the use of alternate accounts may be to avoid future detection. Furthermore, as now tagged in the article, it may be a violation of WP:ADVOCACY in their clear political promotional content.

Thank you, and this concludes the evidence submitted. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  08:35, 28 December 2017 (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
A CU is impossible; all the users are. Moreover, the most recent edit by any user is a year and a half ago. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)