Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Norman304/Archive

03 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

These three SPAs have sequentially created and then expanded a page on a family of Anglo-Norman minor nobility, Baron de Colville (renamed Lord Colvill), adding dubious, unreliable or WP:SYNTH material, and adding it back after removal for legitimate policy reasons (history, specifically , ,). In the case of the first, it may be a forgotten account given that months passed between its usage and the second, but the third followed the second by less than 24 hrs to participate in what turns out to be a content dispute. The similarity in Username (an ethnicity of the family in question followed by a 3-digit number) and SPA behavior makes this look like a WP:DUCK. Agricolae (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Users have repeatedly removed well validated and cited information, replacing them with no citations of their own. I felt that at one point this is some sort of personal vendetta and had moved beyond an serious academic debate. All sources cited are well reasearched. Many thanks Norman 304 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norman304 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Socks indeffed and master blocked for 1 week. Hopefully when he comes off his block he'll attempt to discuss his problems rather than simply edit war and sock. I have chosen to treat Norman304 as the master, rather than the oldest account, as that currently appears to be his main. This case was originally opened under Norman247, but was moved here. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

11 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

A week ago, SPA User Norman304 was given a 1-week block for using multiple accounts (all SPAs) to carry out a content dispute. The last thing Norman304 did before the block was to try to reverse a page move (of Baron de Colville to Lord Colvill), not by reverting or discussing, but by simply replacing the redirect on Baron de Colville with the text they preferred for the page (and under dispute). Now with hours left to run in that block a new SPA, Williamellis12, has made the same edit, replacing the redirect with text identical to the first two sentences Norman304 had used when replacing the redirect with text a week before. Another WP:DUCK. Agricolae (talk) 00:30, 11 March 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

 * Blocking all accounts indefinitely for obvious sockpuppetry. If this continues, article will be protected. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note, is also an obvious sockpuppet of Norman304. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

18 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Another SPA is doing the same thing - replacing a redirect on the same page, Baron de Colville, with the same disputed text from Lord Colvill (plus some more). Carrying out a content dispute/namespace dispute via socks. Agricolae (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

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