Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sfj340sfeoem71/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both accounts persistently remove content from Camille Andrews and Rob Andrews. In the case of the master here and and the puppet claiming that the master version was the correct version deletes the same content over several edits including here and here. Both editing patterns are identical and seem to be whitewashing attempts  Velella  Velella Talk 22:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The master is. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sock indeffed. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All of the suspected sockpuppets, along with suspected sockmaster and confirmed sockpuppet, have engaged in a coordinated whitewashing campaign of the Rob Andrews article. Most of the suspected sockpuppets follow a similar username pattern, and are single-purpose accounts that repeatedly whitewash or remove content related to Andrews's resignation (for alleged misuse of funds) in the Rob Andrews article.
 * 1)  removed content from the article's Controversies section in Special:Diff/787193376. The account was already blocked by  with a comment referencing confirmed sockpuppet, although the user page was not tagged or added to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sfj340sfeoem71.
 * 2)  whitewashed the article's Controversies section in Special:Diff/787687981. The account was already blocked by  for sockpuppetry on the Rob Andrews article, but was not explicitly linked to  during the block.
 * 3)  whitewashed the article's Tenure section in Special:Diff/879525518, removing content including a mention of Andrews's support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and replacing the removed content with promotional platitudes such as 'Andrews is most known as doing what was “right for the people while doing financially right for the country."' The edit used a misleading edit summary, "Fixed grammar and replaced expired cite."
 * 4)  made two perplexing edits, Special:Diff/879578324 and Special:Diff/879578463, possibly as a distraction tactic. The edits used misleading edit summaries, "Deleted duplicate sentences, added source." and "Fixed duplication". The tactic may have worked, as  ended up reverting 's edits in Special:Diff/879578740, but did not address 's prior edits.
 * 5)  removed the article's Controversies section in Special:Diff/879580830. The edit used a misleading edit summary, "removed duplicate sentences. added source".
 * 6)  added promotional content in Special:Diff/879584726 that fails verification to the cited press release.
 * 7)  added a promotional claim, "Andrews is the only Democrat who pledged he would not raise taxes", to the article's Voting History section which describes Andrews in general. This claim was sourced from an article that stated "Mr. Andrews is the only Democratic candidate to pledge that he will not raise taxes" in the context of a single election.
 * 8) 's edit (Special:Diff/881599053) isn't too bad, but the account follows a similar username pattern and its only edit was to the Rob Andrews article.
 * 9)  removed information on Andrews's resignation from the lead section at Special:Diff/916496569. The edit used a misleading edit summary, "removed broken link and deleted a duplicate sentence." The account name is a close match to confirmed sockpuppet.
 * 10) 's edits aren't too bad, but the account follows a similar username pattern and all 4 of its edits were to the Rob Andrews article.
 * 11)  removed information on Andrews's resignation from the lead section at Special:Diff/916620325. The edit used a misleading edit summary, "removed vandalism. reverted back to last approved page".
 * 12)  removed information on Andrews's resignation from the lead section at Special:Diff/916751014.
 * 13)  removed information on Andrews's resignation from the lead section at Special:Diff/916786697 and Special:Diff/916820569.
 * 14)  removed information on Andrews's resignation from the lead section at Special:Diff/918085868.

Requesting CheckUser due to extensive abuse. —  Newslinger  talk   09:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Is there a way I can report my concerns that I have expressed in a meaningful way? How do you suggest I handle this? IMme4u09 (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , This is a sockpuppet investigation, there is really nothing you can do aside from sit and wait. Someone raised a valid concern so a CU/SPI clerk will look into the allegations. Kb03 (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you KbO3 for your response. Do you think you could help me understand why I was added to this inquriy in the first place? Putting aside what has transpired today once the inquiry was opened, but originally, why I was added to the inquiry yesterday in the first place? Thanks!IMme4u09 (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because of your article edits--duh. Now, leave this alone; I have half a mind of reverting all your excessive, aggressive, and irrelevant edits in one fell swoop. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiki is supposed to be safe, inclusive environment for everyone.IMme4u09 (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

For the record, removed a large volume of comments from this section, including ones written by other editors. I'm not going to restore them because some of 's comments could be construed as personal attacks, but they can be found in the page history ending 3 October. —  Newslinger  talk   20:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I just ran a check on a range, but this needs a CU who has a bigger screen, more skillz, and less sleepiness than this one. But Newslinger, thanks for filing this: you are on to something. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The following accounts are ✅ to each other: These potential sleeper accounts are ✅ from the above accounts: Other accounts, including the master, are. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and close this. The other accounts all have too few edits for me to feel comfortable blocking purely on behavioral evidence. If they become active again, feel free to re-report them. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Q before archiving - if the socks aren't tied to Sfj340sfeoem71 shouldn't the case be moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Sbaker143? Cabayi (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cabayi - Because the master is stale doesn't mean that the master isn't tied to the socks found. Have we actually established that they're related or unrelated, or are we declining to do so? How we process and archive this case depends on these circumstances...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Behaviorally, I'd say they are pretty likely to be related. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)