Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScotXW/Archive

22 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

See the only contribs they have made, defending ScotXW at ANI, who has been edit warring on his own user page via a violation of POLEMIC, ended up getting his user page full protected, and is under threat of a block by a couple of admin. Finding ANI, this case, understanding full protection, etc. clearly indicates this is a sock of someone. Evading scrutiny/stacking support.

Asking for CU to confirm. This is either a Joe job to get him blocked, or the most poorly thought out and obvious sock job I've seen in a long time. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  12:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would think that you clerking is fine as you've only acted in an admin capacity with him. is also familiar with the ANI case, if he is available.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  15:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Tough call. I'm inclined to think that blocks would be inappropriate because the odds of someone trying to punk him by using a proxy is greater than someone with 7000 edits being that incredibly inept at sockpuppetry. Kind of what the IP is saying. The only other option is that he is trolling us, which is a credible scenario, although a long winded way to do it. In short, I'm still suspicious but not convinced either way.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm interested to see what SPI says because I can't believe someone would behave this obviously. If he's giving up, why not leave? If he's trying to mess around with people I think a little bit of subtlety would've gone a long way. 165.214.12.79 (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this is obviously a sock of someone, hence my DUCK statement at the ANI. But, it doesn't seem like we could figure out exactly who from CU. I'd be inclined to think that Scot isn't that dumb, and that it's a sock of another LTA account or something of the sort, maybe even the one named in the page. Anyone know of any blocked/banned users who had a special issue with WP:POLEMIC? 107.219.151.20 (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC) (former User:Ansh666)
 * *abandons clerk hat for admin hat, and recuses self from any further technical action on this case* I find Atama's reasoning below pretty convincing - certainly more convincing than the idea that an editor with ScotXW's extensive history of positive content contributions and clean block log would suddenly start socking over something as trivial as that ANI discussion. I would recommend either closing this or moving it to the DeFacto casepage, with no action against ScotXW. Yunshui 雲 水 19:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree Scot doesn't need action. Blocking Anglicia an obvious sock of someone is a reasonable action, imho.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  20:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I don't think my filing of the original ANI case precludes me from clerking this... Endorsing to confirm or deny one way or the other. Personally I rather hope it isn't ScotXW, but the timing is highly suspect. Yunshui 雲 水 13:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . The account only made two edits, both from a webhost (now blocked).--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If I had to guess, I would suggest this was a sockpuppet of the same master who ran Still wasted. Anglicia had brought up this page, complaining about how it was "frozen in time" (full-protected) and worse than what ScotXW had written. This happened after Still wasted repeatedly tried to have the page deleted, then blanked it twice. Still wasted was blocked for being a sockpuppet after claiming to be "a long-time editor of good-standing". It was suspected that Still wasted was either a sock of DeFacto or Lucy-marie, as both are discussed on the page that Still wasted so strongly wanted to delete. If we assume that DeFacto and Lucy-marie are different people, I'd assume that Still wasted (and Anglicia) are DeFacto, considering what is discussed about the editors in the Notes section of Prisonermonkeys's sandbox page; basically since DeFactor repeatedly pushes a POV, and because neither Anglicia nor Still wasted pretended to be new editors the way that Lucy-marie is known to. --  At am a  頭 19:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I blocked Anglicia per WP:DUCK, and marked as a sockpuppet of DeFacto, for the reasons I've stated above. I've also renamed the master for archive purposes, and with the sock blocked I think this can be closed. --  At am a  頭 23:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)