Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ngoesseringer/Archive

02 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * -- another new one for the AfD
 * -- another new one for the AfD
 * -- another new one for the AfD
 * -- another new one for the AfD
 * -- another new one for the AfD
 * -- another new one for the AfD
 * -- another new one for the AfD
 * -- another new one for the AfD
 * -- another new one for the AfD


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

see history of -- all brand new, all editing only this article, clear WP:DUCK. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

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

this just popped up this morning on the AFD. This is Mikeclark22's sixth edit and very first talk page edit. If this user is socking we can expect more sock comments on the AFD. Coffeepusher (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Confirmed sock Selmaflora294 just commented on the AFD confirming that Ngoesseringer User:Toshkanetsuper3 is abusively using multiple accounts to sway consensus.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This series of edits     would indicate some type of link between the Ngoesseringer and BlackstonB accounts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * These are all single-purpose accounts created within a few days, so the edit history looks more than suspicious. If this is the same user, they've double-!voted in the AFD and agreed with themself under quite a few usernames on the talk page. Could be meatpuppetry just as well, though. Jafeluv (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * - CU might help tell if this is sock- or meatpuppetry. Also check for sleepers, just in case. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Group 1 ✅:
 * Group 2 ✅:
 * The rest of the accounts are editing from a variety of locations, ISPs and devices, and there may be connections between some of them, but I'm not seeing them at the moment. If another CU would like to take a look, I would welcome their input. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirmed sockers have been blocked and tagged. I guess the rest are meatpuppets. I suspect the article will be deleted, and then hopefully all this nonsense stops. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken a second look and concur with DoRD's conclusions. Risker (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The rest of the accounts are editing from a variety of locations, ISPs and devices, and there may be connections between some of them, but I'm not seeing them at the moment. If another CU would like to take a look, I would welcome their input. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirmed sockers have been blocked and tagged. I guess the rest are meatpuppets. I suspect the article will be deleted, and then hopefully all this nonsense stops. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken a second look and concur with DoRD's conclusions. Risker (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirmed sockers have been blocked and tagged. I guess the rest are meatpuppets. I suspect the article will be deleted, and then hopefully all this nonsense stops. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken a second look and concur with DoRD's conclusions. Risker (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

08 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (added 4/9)
 * (added 4/9)
 * (added 4/9)
 * (added 4/9)


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

SPAs that have come only to continue the inane argument attacking other people about whether a "handsome young tenor" 's rendition of the national anthem was viewed by 25 million people during a football game after the previous accounts were blocked. The previous discovery of numerous linked accounts also identified some that could not be directly tied with the evidence at the time, these additional account may provide solid proof.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  09:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC) --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  09:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Each of these users has done exactly two edits, one 1000+ characters, one 350+- (in that order). Each of them contest the following edit which was the subject of an edit war involving two of the previous socks (Selmaflora295). The content dispute has bled into the AFD because of these socks. Each of these new accounts was created on the same day, followed the same patterns, wikilinked and commented on policy in their first two edits, and commented directly to users involved in the conversation, which was User:Ngoesseringer's style. I think we can close this with WP:DUCK.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * added User:Koolgirlygirl yet another SPA joining the PR agent's push for claims of notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There is data to indicate that there may be a relation between the accounts, but my official result is . -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  12:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether it's socking or meatpuppetry ("" and all that), it's pretty clear that these were all created for votestacking purposes. In any case, the AFD has already been closed and the article deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * SPAs appear to be inactive, so nothing more to do here. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)