Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Requiem II/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Receiipt already busted after likely collusion on Shinee and Key (entertainer) suggested socking, and CU confirmed this. I'd like a good CU to have a look at the master and see what else might be there. CU already revealed the PSY111 account (and note how polite Requiem is in welcome his socks...) Drmies (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK--since then, I blocked, , , , , , , , , after CU check. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Hello there. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing (I hope I wrote on the correct subtopic), and I am really surprised that I am investigated for sockpuppetry . This is my one and only account on Wikipedia. Hence, I do not have any alternate accounts here. I hope the patrolling admins do a thorough investigation, and make a fair and reasonable decision. Thank you and best regards, firefoxoh (talk) 7:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Do you still want another CU to check this? Seems like a waste of time as you appear to be doing just fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they are editing from a shared educational range, and because their editing interests don't overlap with Requiem II, these appear to be ❌:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they are editing from a shared educational range, and because their editing interests don't overlap with Requiem II, these appear to be ❌:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they are editing from a shared educational range, and because their editing interests don't overlap with Requiem II, these appear to be ❌:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they are editing from a shared educational range, and because their editing interests don't overlap with Requiem II, these appear to be ❌:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * . How many CUs does it take to screw in an SPI? Apparently at least three.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * DoRD, I thought about those a bit and saw a common local interest, but I see now that this need not be damning. Please advise on the next action--if you just want to go ahead, unblock, and blame me, that's absolutely fine with me., I asked for CU before I started browsing myself; it's clear that I have a lot to learn still, so I appreciate y'all double-checking me. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I ran a partial but substantial check, and I agree with 's findings. I also think the unrelated accounts should be unblocked. I even lean toward unblocking Firefoxoh.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll also mention something I meant to before: The unrelated accounts are primarily editing from the educational range, where the confirmed accounts are editing extensively from another ISP. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you agree with unblocking unrelated accounts?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They are the experts! Drmies (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This "expert" has unblocked the unrelated accounts and one possible account. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)