Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R0745976409/Archive

02 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Both are vandalizing the Anca Heltne article in exactly the same way as a recently blocked user, R0745976409. Pietaster (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2014 (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
This is a clear case of using sockpuppets for block evasion while the editor is blocked for edit-warring. I'm going to block the sockpuppet account indefinitely, and block the sockmaster for a week (for block evasion) and block the IP address for a week as well so that it can't be used for the duration of the block. If the main account goes right back to edit-warring again after the block expires we can consider an indefinite block. I'm concerned that the editor's history shows no attempt to communicate with anyone, I guess we'll see. --  At am a  頭 22:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

16 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This involves Anca Heltne. All three accounts edit only that article and its talk page (Leventebest edited the talk page twice (here claiming ownership and here telling everyone to leave the article alone). The master edited List of doping cases in athletics removing Heltne from the list.

The problem started in 2012 when IPs clearly belonging to the master removed Heltne's ban e.g., and. After being reverted by other users, the master makes his first edit removing the same material as the IPs. After a significant edit war, the master expanded the removal to this edit, removing all of the doping disqualifications in late March 2014. I blocked the master for edit warring on April 2, and then that was expanded by based on block evasion by an IP and by a registered account, which was indeffed by Atama. One day later, Leventebest made his first edit removing precisely the same material. Then Leventebest expanded his edit here to include the removal plus adding unsourced material to the article. I reverted and Leventebest reverted me. I reverted again. One day after my last revert, Stancu made his first edit removing the same material but expanding the addition of mostly unacceptable material (along the same lines as Leventebest). After I reverted, Stancu reverted, and I reverted again, Leventebest returned to restore Stancu's edit here. Another editor reverted, and the last edit was Leventebest reverting that editor.

I'm requesting a CU. Although I believe there's enough to block based on duck, the first named puppet was indeffed as suspected because there was no CU, and it would be helpful to confirm the relationship. However, another clerk can decide whether to endorse a CU given the evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2014 (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

 * and are ✅ socks of .--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed the master (they've done nothing constructive at Wikipedia) and the two puppets - all tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

07 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same edits to Anca Heltne as previous socks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:40, 7 May 2014 (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

 * Blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)