Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ralphreretort/Archive

23 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

These four accounts have only been used to vandalize or edit the Emily Schooley article. Checkuser is necessary because there is clearly some kind of harassment against the reputation of Emily Schooley, some of which regarding WP:BLPCRIME allegations, based on the edits of these four accounts. It is unclear whether this is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (probably both), and who should be blocked as socks and who warned for meatpuppetry.


 * [] - pastapimp vandalism
 * [] - pastapimp article blanking
 * [] - pastapimp vandalism
 * [] - pastapimp section blanking
 * [] - pastapimp blanks career information
 * [] - pastapimp posts bizarre allegations against Schooley
 * [] - pastapimp blanks bio information
 * [] - pastapimp removes film credits for Schooley
 * [] - ralphretort11 posts bizarre allegations against Schooley
 * [] - nothingbutnett removes an interview source that is still available
 * [] - user at IP address 74.15.5.78 removes one word in an edit, then seems to catch on that their IP is visible and reverts said edit.

There may be other socks that pop up in relation to this as well. Sadfatandalone (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I should note that, whilst Pastapimp is clearly dodgy, the SPI creation was this account's first edit. Something very weird is going on around this article and the AfD, and I would recommend a CU on all of the new users to find out who is linked to who. There's just too many new accounts jumping in for there not to be links IMO. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also wonder if some accounts are linked to the long-blocked User:Misssinformative, who had a whole army of socks at the previous AfD arguing to keep this article. Obviously a CU won't turn anything up after four years, but it's worth a look and see if the styles match or not. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm actually paying attention... I think Sadfatandalone should be blocked as per WP:DUCK, because even though CU turned up nothing, there's no way any brand new user would know how to file an SPI correctly in their first edit. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 01:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've indeffed and tagged all accounts except Nothingbutnett. Pastapimp is the only one with a suspected tag. The IP is stale. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * is to
 * is ❌
 * The filer has edited logged out contrary to the sock policy, but other than that as far as CU can tell right now, is sock-free. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)