Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ShinySquire/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Shared fixation on adding primary-sourced info to Brittany Pettibone. Repeating previous changes made by other socks (compare to , , and ) Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 2 March 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

 * CU-blocked, closing. GABgab 23:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Repeating previous sock's attempt to wikilink to "ethnic nationalism" at Brittany Pettibone, and to fill in trivial details of ancestry based on flimsy primary sources. Use of citation templates are precocious and is the same as previous sock edits, including listing whole name in "last name" field.

Requesting checkuser based on previous history. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 11 March 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

 * CU obviously unnecessary. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Heavy focus on Brittany Pettibone, mixed in with gnomish wikilinks, just like previous socks. Grayfell (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

AnonEditor18923 is open about being an alt of RonaldWilliam Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

I'm the same person with multiple accounts, with most of my accounts are throwaway accounts. I use multiple accounts to hide my IP from public view, due to editing on a contentious subject, and it was never my intention to be deceptive. From my understanding of the policy on multiple accounts, my actions are perfectly allowed.

If I somehow violated a rule on it, it was never my intention. Reading my edits to the Wiki, you can see that all of my edits have been constructive and with the purpose of improving the articles within. I never have any malicious intent, and followed Wikipedia guidelines on sock puppets and multiple accounts; all of my edits are constructive. On the other note, before today, I didn't know how to respond to accusations, so I'll freely admit that is my fault. I'm currently setting a perm account, which is named CuriousDetector. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses AnonEditor18923 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC


 * New Account

CuriousDetector (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

A new account, created about one day after the last one, adding more or less the same thing to Brittany Pettibone. Most new users on that article turn out to be socks, but this one is a bit of an outlier as it doesn't appear to be a WP:SPA, because it has edited other pages. Sro23 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 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 account is. This master uses webhosts and most frequently one in particular. This user is using a legitimate ISP. The only reason I'm not finding it ❌ is because of a match of one UA, although it's not an uncommon UA. The behavior of this user is, as Sro23 notes, also different.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Closed with no action.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)