Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StanG1992/Archive

30 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:StanG1992 created page Harlan Hill. I nominated the page for deletion and within the same minute, User:HoyaThomas01 was created. User then edited Harlan Hill and participated in the deletion discussion as their first two edits. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   22:14, 30 May 2015 (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 accounts are ✅. Indeffed/tagged the puppet. Blocked the master for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

31 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:StanG1992 was found to be the puppeteer of User:HoyaThomas01 in this sockpuppet investigation. About seven hours after those users were blocked, User:34esmond was created and began editing the same and similar articles the previous two users had been editing including Porter-Gaud School, Harlan Hill and, most notably, participating in the AfD discussion on Harlan Hill. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   21:37, 31 May 2015 (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

 * is very . Blocked and tagged. I've also changed the master's block to indefinite. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to make changes in your comment myself. Isn't it 34esmond, and not Esmond?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that. I've fixed it. At least I blocked the right account.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

An article on Harlan Hill, noted bow-tied television Trump supporter, was created last year by User:StanG1992 and eventually deleted for lack of notability. In the course of that argument, it was discovered that StanG1992 created two sock puppets (User:HoyaThomas01 and User:34esmond) to edit the Hill article and participate in the deletion discussion. Earlier this year, User:Alee9910045 was created and created a new article on Hill. The new article contained much of the same totally unverified information as the original, deleted article, and this user's contribs, like those of the known sockmaster and sockpuppets, is entirely concerned with the Harlan Hill article. Seems like it's worth a check! john k (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

How long do these things take? It's been a week. john k (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2016 (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

 * Assuming the master moved since over a year ago, Alee9910045 is .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was asked by a community member see if I could clarify this statement for them...and I'm very much drawing a blank on how you made this result. Could you drop me an email? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Taking off hold without comment. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * along with CU evidence, the contents of the deleted article and the article recreated by Alee9910045 are not identical but remarkably similar (with various phrases simply being organized into different parts of the article, for example) in my opinion to the extent that sockpuppetry is demonstrated. could you please opine on whether this account should be CU-blocked or not? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a CU block as far as I'm concerned.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just regular old then. Case closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The entirety (with one small exception) of this user's edits are to the "Harlan Hill" article (the same article that the sockmaster has repeatedly used). The user adds extensive content about Hill's background (unsourced), appearances (often unsourced) and self-promotion type content (for instance, speculation that he may run for the Senate). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:54, 14 September 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

 * - in this admins-only diff, a prior sock restores unsourced information in Hill's article with an edit summary alluding to the political motivations of the editor who removed it. In this REFUND request, Patriot154 asks for the now-deleted article on Hill to be restored, alluding to the political motivations of the editors who voted to remove it. In both instances, no such motivation was apparent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)