Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PeoriaAZ/Archive

12 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This edit was made by the sockmaster, who is an acknowledged (only on the edit summary, not on the article, or his user page) paid COI editor, as seen in the this edit summary. After being reverted for POV edits, an IP editor turned up with this edit, which bears striking similarity to the earlier paid COI editor.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Neither has responded one way or the other. However, another ip: 2600:8800:ff10:a00:1c7f:db27:7faf:c946 has made this edit, which contains much of the same information (as well as additional promotional information, including the use of verbatim language in places.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Looks like a duck to me, but have IP or account denied being each other? Looks to me like it might be acting in good faith, unaware that socking was against policy. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this section is used by Clerks/CUs/admins only,, I'm moving your comment up above. I agree that the editors (I've added 2600:8800:ff10:a00:1c7f:db27:7faf:c946 to the report) are duck socks, and that it's ongoing abuse and likely merits a block of some sort. I'm therefore requesting administrator assistance. As I've now done a status change, it looks like this case is up to you now. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 07:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Both IPs blocked. Since it's possible PeoriaAZ simply forgot to log in, and appears willing to engage in discussions on the talk page, I've left their account unblocked and dropped them a message warning them about sticking to one account in the future. I'll leave you to close the case if you think this is sufficient L235. Sam Walton (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)