Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinclairindex/Archive

09 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

These are SPA accounts, either sock or meat puppet, who have been seeding Wikipedia with dubious text and articles on Warren Chaney since 2011. The evidence for a massive hoax is now being unraveled through discussions at: with obviously more to follow since this covers a few hundred articles. I am requesting a checkuser investigation to see if more socks might be present. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America: A Call to Greatness
 * Articles for deletion/Dynamic Mind
 * Articles for deletion/Space Patrol Chronicles
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes please! I've noticed that the articles tend to have the same issues: they're all fairly promotional and rely on sources that are either completely unreliable or don't seem to exist in the slightest. So far there's a lot to argue that most of the information about Chaney is false, as many of the articles make grandiose claims but searches bring up zipola other than IMDb, primary sources, or some extremely dodgy websites. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  23:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just added LawStClaire and I'm not 100% positive that I did it right. I copied the template for the other names on the list and tacked it on at the end. Hope that was right. Just kidding. You already had all of the same names I had... Semantic Satiation. I haven't come across other names in the past two days besides these 4. I won't be blown away if there are more, but these are definitely the most active. Permstrump (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What does it mean that LawStClaire is stale? I hope I didn't mess something up b/c I overlooked that it was already on the list and added it a second time and then deleted my change a few minutes later. Permstrump (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't mess up anything. Stale means that the account has not edited within the last three months and in this case it has been several years. CU policy stipulates that data retention is brief and it is generally three months. My comment was intended for the Checkuser. Including stale accounts is still good because it allows for a more thorough investigation and behavioral comparisons.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - to determine extents of socking and locate sleepers if any. LawStClaire is stale. The above users may be hoaxsters and are trying to influence AfDs.
 * ✅ that and  belong to, they are all one same editor. - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No sleepers then? I'm going to indef all but the stale account.
 * No sleepers found for now. - Mailer Diablo 05:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing left to do here, closing case. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)