Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oranjblud/Archive

05 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Baterioj nominates an article for deletion, Articles for deletion/Battery Energy Drink. Then canvasses a couple of users. Then Oranjblud turns up and votes to delete. I should note that what made me start investigating the behavior of nominator was an AfD that to me seems completely frivolous which gets people to support the nomination. I found that the first supporter had been canvassed by nominator. Oranjblud apparently has not been canvassed, but my investigation through Wiktionary suggests that both accounts mentioned in this report are Czech spelling (baterie & blud). I notice there is a discussion on Oranjblud's talk page from March 2012 about the user being a sockpuppet, although I did not fully appraise myself of that discussion. meco (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have nothing further. I thought the apparent connections meaningful enough to warrant a second look. Others may see it differently, which is in part why we have these processes. I understand that it is unpleasant to be subjected to suspicion like this, but I have no substantial feelings towards any of the two accounts. __meco (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Completely deny this. I commented on a number of AFD's as I had myself added AFD's on the same day. I am not Czech. Question on process - are there sufficient grounds here for a realistic accusation of sockpuppetry ? - ie what on what grounds did Meco start 'investigating' me ? Appears close to bad faith in my opinion.Oranjblud (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware that Oranjblud had already admitted to using multiple accounts here: All are already blocked, and since Oranjblud has been editing during those blocks, they are evading those blocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * - This is the oldest of the disclosed accounts
 * John was aware and blocked those, and he had agreed to not sock any more. I would like to assume as good of faith in his editing as I can, but can only do so if no present or future socks exists.  Perhaps a CU could shed some light on this to insure there are no undisclosed socks, and assuming it comes out clean, move forward based on John's previous handling.  I think a CU might be warranted for that reason alone. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  18:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You missed User:Shortfatlad..
 * I just remembered User talk:HappyUR which hasn't yet been blocked - I was using this account after I had been blocked on User:HappyVR, and requested being unblocked - but had forgotten the password - (the editor that blocked HappyVR should have some record of this) - ultimatety I was told they couldn't recover the old password of the blocked account - so I don't think this was ever unblocked.
 * I am certain this is the entire list. All other edits were made as an IP.
 * I would like to point out that despite what template/action may have been used to close those accounts -  I never used any for any sockpuppet activity, and if you refer to the edit record you will see that. I marked them as "out of use" (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carrolljon  -except where I forgot). At no point did I ever edit with more than one account. You can verify this youself by looking at the edit histories. In all cases I used the new accounts to make contributions, nothing more.
 * I admitted to having had previous accounts, and User:John applied blocks on account that I was no longer using. At no point did I admit to sockpuppetry because (in my opinion) I no point have I used sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, handpuppetry etc etc. Oranjblud (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Sorry, but I'm not seeing the connection. We'll need some real evidence before taking up this case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

31 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Removal of accessdates from citations.
 * xiiophen -
 * See section "Undiscussed large-scale removal of accessdate=" on talk page of prof.Haddock for which they were blocked for editwarring on St Pancras railway station.

Use of short months
 * xiiophen - even in running text https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICx&diff=prev&oldid=682727131
 * Prof.Haddock -
 * Oranjblud -

Use of citation template
 * xiiophen - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_of_Hull&curid=11396530&diff=683239843&oldid=681082217
 * Prof.Haddock - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeumont-Schneider&diff=616631772&oldid=486678538
 * Oranjblud - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkwearmouth_Railway_Bridge&diff=prev&oldid=517225114

Use of American spellings such as center on British pages
 * xiiophen -
 * Prof.Haddock - 217.38.163.170 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Same accounts on Commons.

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

 * Closing. The evidence is weak and circumstantial.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  23:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the whole case again, I decided to block prof.Haddock and xiiophen.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)