Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Panism/Archive

27 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

First edit is to remove speedy tag from Panism, an article created by Walter0121. Sjö (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2015 (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

 * -   Vanjagenije   (talk)  10:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, unsurprisingly. Master warned and sockpuppet blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

28 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Created Panism, that appears to be about a photographer. Probably the same article that Walter0121 created recently. Sjö (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Dear Admin, I got this investigation notice, but My user id:panism has been created many years ago and I only added the basic user info on the user page last week, and I didn't edited or added other pages to against or harm any wikipedian.

Panism 23:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panism (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Admin is needed to check the deleted article. If it's the same as the one written by Walter0121, than .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article created by Panism is a barebones article about the same subject as Walter0121's article. It is not the neologism that was first created in 2008 and deleted. I think it's enough to connect the two accounts, although it's not a slam dunk. However, no matter how you slice it, Panism is the master, not Walter0121. So, we have two options. One is to request a CU to nail whether Panism is technically related. If it is, then we can change the master and block, adjusting whatever tags need to be adjusted accordingly. If it is not, then we take no action and leave it as is. The second option is to take action without a CU, which would mean changing the master, etc. Your thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a CU in this case. Did you notice that added a message both here and on the talk page lying that he "didn't edit or add other pages" (we know he added article "Panism")? Why would he lie if he is not guilty?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  00:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I would feel more comfortable if I knew whether Reaper Eternal checked for sleepers when he ran the CU in the above case. ? --Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Oops. They are all editing from a public IP, so I will not list the potential sleepers. The other accounts which have edited all edited unrelated areas. That they are different users is quite possible. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have indeffed all of the accounts that were not already indeffed (see above case). Too many lies, as Vanjagenije points out, to let the master off the hook. I've tagged and retagged as appropriate. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)