Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petesmith2013/Archive

18 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

New user, first edit was to reinstate unsourced POV on Emma Kenny here, an article which the puppeteer authored and has a declared COI, reflecting concerns the puppeteer raised on the articles talk page. Both editors have claimed the article is libelous on my talk page, diffs 1, and  2 ''' Flat Out    let's discuss it   12:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added SiriusSymmetry who appeared on the same article after Petesmith2013 was blocked, parroting comments from ANI in their edit summary. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   21:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Hi, not sure what this means. Dont have a clue who bobbins is. This isnt me and nor has it ever been. I have been sat at my computer for hours trying to get a fair article up onto your site. whywould i make another account while i am doing this. I am not stupid and am trying to solve this in a fair manor. I appreciate your concerns though. Petesmith2013 (talk)p

Can you not check my IP address ? As i don't want you guys to think Id engage in Sockpuppetry. there is no need ,all i have given you is evidence for the article and I have been having fairly civilised discussion with the editor.

Petesmith2013 (talk)p
 * IPs are normally hidden for registered users; only a special userclass and tool (WP:Checkuser) can see them and other technically-identifying information, and even then only if there is a credible reason to do so. See Privacy policy. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 10:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
In addition to the similar editing of the one article which is the only interest of both accounts, there is also a very similar attitude battleground to other editors exhibited in talk page comments, and similar accusations of a wicked conspiracy. It may well be meatpuppetry rather than straight sockpuppetry, but there is enough similarity to encourage me to think a CU may help. Of course, the invitation to check the IP addresses could suggest that the editor knows they will not be the same, but even if that is so, a CU might or might not turn up other relevant information, such as geolocation. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Both have suggested an I.P check, one here and the other at my talk page which suggests they know they won't match.''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   21:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then behaviour will have to do, and behaviour is quite damning. And even if they are not technically sockpuppets, WP:Sock puppetry applies, which says that any editor matching the behaviour of a known user but is not that user may be still be sanctioned as if they were a sockpuppet. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 04:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I is not quite valid to conclude from "they have both invited IP checks" that "behaviour will have to do". Even if the IP addresses are different (and we don't know whether they are), I can imagine various other pieces of information that might be useful, such as one IP is a public library in the same city where the other one is a domestic IP, or both are dynamic IPs from the same ISP and the user agents match exactly, for example. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a bit more to checkuser results than simply seeing whether the IP addresses are the same... let's find out, shall we? Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Other than being in the same country, they appear to be ❌ to one another. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing case per CU findings and since Petesmith2013 has been blocked indef. Note that sanctions can still be sought against the other two in another venue if disruption continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)