Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sec4dr/Archive

Report date August 22 2009, 07:18 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Appears to be a sockpuppet as both users are single-purpose users whose only edits have been to support a non-notable film: The Drunken Dead Guy. This user has appeared only in the last couple days, and all postings are in support of the suspected sockpuppet. Frmatt (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Frmatt (talk)


 * Addendum - Possibly User:Sec3dr as well. Frmatt (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added above. —  Jake   Wartenberg  20:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

✅ =  = .  J.delanoy gabs adds  20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Tagged. Blocks still need to be done. NW ( Talk ) 20:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocks done. (Apparently bribing FLC directors with promises of comments on important threads works). Closing. NW ( Talk ) 20:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 22 2009, 21:22 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by MuZemike

The two accounts' only comments have been at Articles for deletion/The Drunken Dead Guy, while the IP's only edits have been at The Drunken Dead Guy. I was going to relist for CheckUser attention but was beat to the punch by an overzealous SPI Clerk when the previous case got archived ;) MuZemike 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Sorry :P —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * CheckUser requests

is.
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

It is that the others could be related. Meatpuppetry seems more likely to me, though. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date August 23 2009, 21:58 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Cunard

Continued votestacking at Articles for deletion/The Drunken Dead Guy.
 * Comment: I have added Category:SPI cases awaiting a CheckUser to this case, since it doesn't seem to be appearing at the bottom of the page. Cunard (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I think it's going to come up the same as before. Judging from how the AFD is going and from the last check, I think this is more or less meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing in an attempt to votestack. Perhaps we can rule out the possibility that any of these accounts are in fact the same person, though. MuZemike 19:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * NW ( Talk ) 21:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

✅ used  to double vote, but I am not certain he intended to do so.

I don't think any of the others are related, but I'm going to ask that a more experienced checkuser look at this, since the results are somewhat complicated. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with J.delanoy's findings here. This is a likely case of off-wiki recruitment. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

AFD is now over; I can't see any other actions that can possibly be taken here. MuZemike 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

-