Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obozedalteima/Archive

01 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User Interaction tool output shows that all seven of the edits mad by IP 69.22.169.238 were to seven pages also edited by user:Obozedalteima before user:Obozedalteima was blocked for disruptive editing for 12 hours.While that block was in place in a period of less one minute IP 69.22.169.238 remade the same edit to a number of pages that had been made by user:Obozedalteima shortly before the block was imposed.

Three sample edits: ....
 * Bosnian War diff Obozedalteima, diff 9.22.169.238
 * Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War diff Obozedalteima, diff 9.22.169.238]
 * Bosnian Genocide diff Obozedalteima, diff 9.22.169.238

I have blocked the accounts for 24 hours as a Duck and as I said on the talk page of user:Obozedalteima I would ask for a review here. If another administrator thinks that I am wrong then please unblock the accounts.

-- PBS (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC) PBS (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' There are two separate questions of sockpuppetry here. Those are my principles; if you don't like them, I have others. bobrayner (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Is 69.22.169.238 a sock of Obozedalteima? This is pretty obvious - the IP appeared whilst Obozedalteima was on a 12 hour block, and it made a sequence of 7 edits which were exactly the same as the ones that got Obozedalteima blocked.
 * 2) Is the Obozedalteima account run by somebody who'd previously used a different account? Personally, I feel it's highly unlikely that a genuine newbie would immediately apply warning tags (rather than changing article text), and get the syntax right even for grouped timestamped tags, and use the "minor" flag... in a rapid series of edits immediately after creating their account. However, Joy disagrees, feeling that Obozedalteima may be a legitimate newcomer, and I respect Joy's experience and deep reserves of AGF. I haven't had time to trawl through edit histories and figure out who could be Obozedalteima...

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I concur. This is quite transparent. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * bobrayner, PBS didn't request a checkuser, that's why we're not discussing that. OTOH, I can't remember a recent case where we'd have this exact pattern. It could genuinely be someone new who learned only how to add cleanup tags. It's not rocket science, after all. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And a CU would not be possible here in any case, since the CU function cannot (by policy) be used to publicly link IP addresses to accounts. However, people may wish to note that after I left a warning on User talk:Obozedalteima about nine hours ago, a reply was posted to this same user talk page from an IP address (178.149.33.113), worded in such a way as to make it obvious that it was from the same user.  This is a different IP from the one originally reported in this SPI.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppetry has ended after the block by User:PBS; while the dispute is ongoing at the user's talk page, SPI is not the way to resolve disputes, so I am closing this case. Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)