Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seaeffel/Archive

22 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

A history of the last 500 edits to Triple Gold Club is illuminating. An IP, shows up on February 11 to add some unsourced original research to the article. It was noticed and reverted on the 20th. immediately reverts back and launches into a long winded edit war with several users in a bid to take ownership of this article and change it to suit their POV. shows up yesterday to restore and expand 70.50's edits then disappears as 70.50 continues to revert war with numerous editors to retain this material. 70.50 was finally blocked today, and immediately afterward, Seaeffel returns to continue revert warring against myself:. The timing is rather obvious here.

Behaviourally, User talk:70.50.217.198 demonstrates that 70.50 rapidly grew increasingly belligerent, never signs their posts and never uses proper indenting. After I left Seaeffel a message on their talk page about resuming the edit war, and expressed my belief that they were behind the blocked IP, their response was behaviourally identical to that of 70.50. Quack, quack, quack. Resolute 19:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Resolute 19:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Yeah, I'm both of those accounts. What is the big deal? Sometimes I can't be bothered to sign in.

So, take me out behind the wood shed, that Resolute is itchin to see me punished.

For all the good I do, I don't think he likes me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaeffel (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The block evasion issue is already resolved, other than that there's no evidence that sock puppetry was intended. , why have you listed Ottawarene (who made one edit to the disputed article, adding an unnecessary comma) as a suspected sockpuppet? Peter&#160;James (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Two reasons: 1) The user came out of nowhere after months of inactivity and 2) Similarity of editing patterns. Most of his prior edits were to CFL-related articles. The IP has made a number to CFL articles too. -- Scorpion 0422  01:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The CFL history caught my eye as well, but the edit itself was innocuous, and since that account never re-appeared during Seaeffel's block, I think it is a moot point now. We could probably remove that account from the list and allow this to archive. Resolute 05:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This issue is resolved per Resolute above, I took the liberty of removing Ottawarene from the list as suggested and I'm closing the case. --  At am a  頭 05:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)