Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ran kurosawa/Archive

30 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both editors are SPAs interested in the CueCat article and related issues, including a person related to CueCat. Both editors started editing at about the same time. Factiod claims he is a patent prosecutor. Kurosawa also says he is a researcher and is sending pages from the U.S. Patent Office. Both have similar problems with English. Factiod is currently blocked until November 1 for edit-warring and other obstreperous conduct. There has been some discussion on the Factiod Talk page about whether Factiod and Kurosawa are the same editor. Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2011 (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

 * accounts seem to have violated 3RR using socks, which is grounds for a check if you ask me. Alexandria   (talk)  16:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The accounts are technically ❌. WilliamH (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * CU isn't magic pixie dust, and I have a feeling these accounts are somehow connected - coworkers or something. I'm disinclined to block, but if another clerk has some thoughts on this, I'd like for them to chime in. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, this explanation makes more sense than sockpuppetry. WilliamH (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that rant makes more sense to you than sockpuppetry, but I will defer to your (collective) decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also taken a look at the behavoiral, and think these are not socks. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

15 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The article CueCat has been subjected to so much poor editing by different WP:SPAs I've lost track. There may be another SPI report related to some of those editors. One has already been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. This latest one has just one edit, a reversion of something that the master put in that had just been reverted by me. The account was created less than an hour after my reversion. The timing is amazing. Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor referred to above who was indefblocked was User:Proofplus. Technoratti may be related to her. If so, this would be block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

There was also User:Factiod, who had something of a similar style to these two and was blocked separately. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I see a to  technical association. With this in mind, I am inclined to agree that this is indeed block evasion, and support a block of Technoratti. WilliamH (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged Technoratti; master blocked 24h. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)