Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SarahNicoleTaylor/Archive

25 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This evening this article was hit by a raft of rapid fire edits changing the nature of the article. User:Amp71 opened a thread at ANI. Admin User:Bbb23 performed the admin duties of blocking all or these and then asked that this SPI report be filed so this is my followup to that request. MarnetteD | Talk 02:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to the ANI thread if you need it Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents MarnetteD | Talk 02:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' These all are quacking to some extent, since all of them like to cite sources to people, and restore the same type of info. Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   02:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I realise you were asked to file this, but that was before the admin noticed that one of the users had explained themselves on User talk:Amp71. Rightly or wrongly, all the accounts are blocked so no further admin action is required. – Steel 02:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was asked to run a check on the basis of this possibly being multiple users sharing a connection to contribute about the same project. SarahNicoleTaylor and SarahNC are ✅, SarahNicoleTaylor-3 is . That's speaking from a purely technical standpoint though. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to close this case sa no action taken. It is quite likely that this is a class project, and the IPs resolve to an educational institution, further proving that these users are likely not sockpuppets. I'll let the ANI thread decide who should be blocked, but I think we can safely say that these are three unique users. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)