Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdruvss/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Spike Wilbury
is a single-purpose account that has been arguing for certain "facts" to be included in Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907. His entire history consists only of arguing at Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 and now at the BLP noticeboard. I attempted to engage him about his seemingly unerring interest in solely this topic, but he declined to respond. Recently, another SPA,, has appeared to mysteriously back up Sdruvss; his only two contributions are here and here. I believe Sdruvss is using socks to creating the appearance of support for his position. Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a few more suspected socks, all SPAs with no other edits except to that page, all have similar "voice", and the IPs all seem to come from the same area. Crum375 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Same area, you mean Brazil, right? Sdruvss (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One of those IPs has contribs on pt: here.LeadSongDog come howl  16:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, this was a low traffic talk page, esp. after the FA promotion, and the suspected SPAs all appeared at roughly the same time, to create an impression of support for Sdruvss. Crum375 (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
I didn't answered earlier this "investigation" because I didn't notice it. I'm not a heavy user of WP. Sdruvss (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum said: "Also, to clarify, this was a low traffic talk page, esp. after the FA promotion, and the suspected SPAs all appeared at roughly the same time." Yes, this is absolutely true. I have just read this article, few weeks ago, found so many mistakes, unreliable sources, partisan, biased, that this made me write in Talk Pages that it is a extremely low quality article that shouldn't receive FA promotion. This article seems an annex to Joe Sharkey blog. Sdruvss (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Sdruvss said: "I think you should investigate Crum375 and the manipulation of this article. I'm a victim of his strategies. He is using this kind of manipulation to say I have puppets when is he who is creating the puppets. He is known in internet by these strategies.". That's a serious accusation. You should have evidence to back that up. I was a major contributor to this article early on and I don't see anything in this article that would make it analogous to Joe Sharkey's blog. I would've been the first to edit it if that was the case - Sharkey's reports are indeed heavily biased and anything other than his first-person account of the moment of the accident itself doesn't belong in the article. From what I see, the article gives equal weight to the findings by the NTSB and CENIPA and doesn't seem to be biased in any way. X X X antiuser 19:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments are based in an internet search. I apologize, if they are false. And it is not an accusation, it is just a request to be investigated, as I am been investigated. Sdruvss (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you provide links to the results of this search you made? You have to understand that accusations like that are not taken lightly. X X X antiuser 19:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I retract that accusation, and I think that here is not the place to do it, neither of what I said. I apologize. Sdruvss (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention. If these are socks, I'm not sure who they would be socks of (whether it would be of User:Sdruvss or possibly somebody else entirely. CU could help here. –MuZemike 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

✅ J.delanoy gabs adds  17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Three sockpuppet accounts blocked and tagged; Sdruvss warned to not abuse alternative accounts in the future. NW ( Talk ) 23:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)