Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Norluap/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

3 accounts with single edits (WP:SPA) adding weakly sourced "controversy" information to Young Americans for Liberty. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:34, 29 May 2020 (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
 
 * This is a good borderline case that yield results that you may wish to look over for your training. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm actually confused what makes this borderline. If I was looking at this as it was originally filed, I would have seen three single-edit accounts, created within a few days of each other, making edits to a politically charged topic.  Calling them socks would have been a no-brainer.  The only question would have been what to do about it.  Each account made their edit immediately after being created, so I might have passed this off as innocent-but-misguided, given the master uw-agf-sock and declined the CU as pointless.  But, given the more extensive socking you found, going back several months, I'd just indef them.
 * This should be renamed to Norluap. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see edits to AMPOL only topics as evidence that they are the same. Yes they edit the same page, but the amount of people that are involved and participate in AMPOL both offline and online is in the millions. This means we are likely to have a lot more meat puppetry. If we look at a more niche editing like historical candidates in a certain region or editing about the same political organization - then I can see it. But with the number of people that edit it, I take a fair amount of time to contemplate checking WP:NOTNEW AMPOL accounts and compare specific behavior, I certainly wouldn't block over it unless there was additional evidence. Do note that I only took a broad look and I may not be digging as deep as you are into the edits, so if you see something more in the edits themselves, that's what I'd call additional evidence. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 13:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , The statistical significance point is valid, but this particular article averages about one new editor per month, and you'd have to go back 4 months prior to find any edits that weren't routine maintenance. Then three new editors in a week making major content changes?  I'm not buying it :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair. To be honest, I don't look that deep and I thought the original reasoning was just AMPOL general. And I was just speaking in general too. These now confirmed can be blocked and done away with. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to go ahead and rename the case to Norluap, yes? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a good borderline case that yield results that you may wish to look over for your training. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm actually confused what makes this borderline. If I was looking at this as it was originally filed, I would have seen three single-edit accounts, created within a few days of each other, making edits to a politically charged topic.  Calling them socks would have been a no-brainer.  The only question would have been what to do about it.  Each account made their edit immediately after being created, so I might have passed this off as innocent-but-misguided, given the master uw-agf-sock and declined the CU as pointless.  But, given the more extensive socking you found, going back several months, I'd just indef them.
 * This should be renamed to Norluap. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see edits to AMPOL only topics as evidence that they are the same. Yes they edit the same page, but the amount of people that are involved and participate in AMPOL both offline and online is in the millions. This means we are likely to have a lot more meat puppetry. If we look at a more niche editing like historical candidates in a certain region or editing about the same political organization - then I can see it. But with the number of people that edit it, I take a fair amount of time to contemplate checking WP:NOTNEW AMPOL accounts and compare specific behavior, I certainly wouldn't block over it unless there was additional evidence. Do note that I only took a broad look and I may not be digging as deep as you are into the edits, so if you see something more in the edits themselves, that's what I'd call additional evidence. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 13:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , The statistical significance point is valid, but this particular article averages about one new editor per month, and you'd have to go back 4 months prior to find any edits that weren't routine maintenance. Then three new editors in a week making major content changes?  I'm not buying it :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair. To be honest, I don't look that deep and I thought the original reasoning was just AMPOL general. And I was just speaking in general too. These now confirmed can be blocked and done away with. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to go ahead and rename the case to Norluap, yes? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)