Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SamBo198/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both account almost exclusively edits American Signal Corporation and related articles, with a focus on the role of Biersach and Niedermeyer. The editors' history, as well as that of the ASC page, are valuable evidences - SB started first in October '20, then Yorkie rolled around in early March, before Bo came back to the ASC page and got caught as an unpaid editor. Also, similar username. CheckUsers please attend, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This is fairly obviously sock puppetry Samboi198 created this draft on Biersach & Niedermeyer Co, which was g13 deleted. SamYorkie then recreated this completely identical draft with an edit summary complaining that the previous page had been taken down. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * .  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * . Please move this case under SamBo198, the older account. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ and tagged the master as well. Closing. Blablubbs&#124;talk 20:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Nearly all of the three user's edit pertain to the Federal Signal 3T22 - all four users added at least one city to its "Cities with" section. The 3T22 is a siren, articles on which SamBo often edited before he was banned, even though SamBo did not edit the 3T22 page themselves. SamArticles' username also starts with "Sam" just like that of the master and their previous sock. Retiring still, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 05:12, 23 June 2021 (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

 * SamBo198 matches:
 * TheChachSirens is stale. The others are technically ❌; behavioral evidence will need to suffice. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * TheChachSirens is stale. The others are technically ❌; behavioral evidence will need to suffice. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * TheChachSirens is stale. The others are technically ❌; behavioral evidence will need to suffice. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm closing this with no further action - none of the accounts have edited very much, and while there is obvious overlap in editing interests, there isn't very much to latch onto behaviourally. Plus none of them have edited in months, so there's no on-going disruption. If they start up again and suspicions remain, we can look at it again.    Girth Summit  (blether)  12:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This user frequently edits pages related to sirens, which was a contentious point in my previous SPIs for. Again, same specified field, same pattern of a slate of edits - likely, don't you think? NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This account's most recent edit was two days ago (April 29). Therefore, the CU should not be rejected on the grounds of staleness alone. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - All previous accounts are, so CheckUser evidence won't tell us anything useful. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In order for a check to tell us anything useful, there must be at least one previous sock that is not stale. This is not the case here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's possible, but a shared interest in a subject is not enough to justify a block. And given that they haven't edited in over a month, it's hard to justify this on the grounds of preventing ongoing disruption. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)