Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Norlns22/Archive

25 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These accounts didn't seem to be problematic until edit warring broke out on the Cheri Bustos article. Looking through the contribs of these users, all three edited on the Cheri Bustos article as well as at Jill Farren Phelps.

Both Nationalavenue and Norlns22 left aggresive messages at User talk:Lesbianadvocate. Three behavioral factors are left in the messages: 1. Both claim LA works for a Republican agency; 2. Both leave a P.S. at the end of their posts; 3. Both users just sign with a sig and not a timestamp.

Also, Decaturstreet and Nationalavenue are both streets, with a Decatur St being located in New Orleans. (However, I may be reading too much into this.)

I am requesting a CU for the simple fact that this user has declared xyr intent on edit warring until after the election.  Ish dar  ian  07:48, 25 October 2012 (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

 * , however given the stated intention to evade blocks ("If you can figure a way to find out which college I am at, and have all the computer lab computers banned from wiki, then you can stop me.... otherwise, you'll just have to deal with it.") I'd say that checkuser is certainly called for here to ensure that there are no sleepers and account creation from that college is disabled at least until November 8th (two days after the US election). - I'd check myself, but I'm at work and shouldn't be using checkuser from here. In the meantime, could someone issue blocks? Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 19:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked all three accounts indefinitely per the stated intention to continue disruption. I have also blocked as another clear sock which began editing since this SPI was filed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Plus already blocked and tagged . I doubt we'll have much of an issue dealing with blocks anyway if it becomes necessary.. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

30 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Requesting CU for sleepers, only because Norlns is currently requesting an unblock.  Ish dar  ian  06:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * . Indigo's second mainspace edit added the name 'Jill Farren Phelps', which happened to be an article Norlns and his socks spent some time.
 * Another reference to Phelps
 * Trademark sig with no timestamp.
 * Sig no timestamp. Also, attacking the same editor Norlns and his socks hit.

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
Indigowild is a complete duck, and I have blocked and tagged the account. However, in view of the user's history of sockpuppetry, and his/her declared intention of using multiple sock puppet accounts to evade blocks, I would be grateful for a checkuser to check for other possible socks. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Compliments for the clear report - the given account is a ✅ match, unsurprisingly. Based on this edit accusing a vested interest against Democrats, and the fact that it is ✅, I am calling and  out as socks too. WilliamH (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, WilliamH. Accounts blocked and tagged. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)