Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steveg79/Archive

29 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets

the following were added since TNXMan's check. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

The connection between Steveg79 and Maxted101 seems to be obvious enough for a duck block: Steveg79 tries to set a new record for 3RR violation on English Defence League. While 3RR case is open, and right after removing two 3RR warnings for the same article, user reverts again on the same article at 12:28. At 12:35 account Maxted101 is created. At 12:59 Steveg79 makes their last talk page post, and at 13:05 Maxted101 makes their first and so far only edit, which is another revert in the line of Steveg79's.

However, another user suspects that Steveg79 is a sock puppet of, a long-term SPA on the same article who also participated in the edit war. The difference in spelling in the edit summaries (Steveg79: "vandalism", Maxted101: "vandalism") makes me think that the situation might not be as straightfoward as it looks, and it could be worthwhile for a checkuser to look over things. Hans Adler 13:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a long term SPA. I make valid contributions. 2ndly, don't waste your time linking me and this guy together, we live in different countries. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That you are a long-term single-purpose account is an easily verifiable fact. You also have long gaps in your editing history. This can be a sign of abuse of multiple accounts, but of course it does not prove anything. That you are editing from Russia, as you claim, is not immediately verifiable for me. All of this makes the situation sufficiently complicated that a checkuser should double check whether, to the extent that technical evidence can settle the question, Maxted101 is related to Steveg79 or to you, and whether both are related to you. Hans Adler 13:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, just trying to save you some time that's all. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Given the two accounts just happen to be fixated on the same three articles ususally making the same changes, I can hear plenty of ducks quacking. 2 lines of K 303  14:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, you be just as deluded as multicultularist in your accusations then. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, easy on the slings and arrows, Alexandre; he is seeing fire where you (and others) have provided smoke. He's doing his job, calling attention to the situation. If you are as innocent as you claim, you have no call to be upset. Sit back and let the checkuser decide what to do. If they check and you are unconnected, your life goes on as usual, and you have the added benefit of have it clearly indicated that you aren't another user. If they do not check, this report goes nowhere. If they check and you are connected, you are likely gone ('and your little dog, too' quoth the Wicked Witch of the West). So, sit back and let wiki-nature take its course. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I hear ya, but we've got history. And he's just spreading the smoke where it's better to just funnel it up the chimney.Alexandre8 (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Both accoutns seem to be SPA's that are saying the self same thing. I am a bit iffy abouit this myslef. maybee we need a chech bustre.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ the two accounts are the same. TN X Man 17:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Master's 3RR block extended to a fortnight; sock indef'd and tagged. Is a hard IP block plausible as a disincentive to trying this again? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Steveg79 and Maxted101? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lets see if he learns.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a fascinating system for trying to identify sockpuppetry, but it cannot be 100 per cent fool proof - and nor can it rule out the possibility of there being more than two involved. Anyway, is there any chance we can now start to roll back the edits which "Steveg79" has done under false pretences? If not, surely he has won? Multiculturalist (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

May need re-opeing .Slatersteven (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Needs to be reopened, must now be time for an indef. -- Snowded  TALK  22:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-opened (forgive the lack of protocol, I'm not a clerk, but IAR). Can we have a CU to check for sleepers and consider the possibility of an IP block, please. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

. Socks blocked and tagged, master's block now indef. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And another, looks like a range block may be needed -- Snowded TALK  22:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (for convenience). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also indef'd Sock789. This one I'm not so sure about, but it does seem to fit the pattern and soemthing is definitely up with this "new" user. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just blocked for 31 hours, obvious sock who had removed an edit requested template from a talk page to keep his edit in (which he'd slipped in while I was protecting the page and I'd missed!) Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * - CU for sleepers and IP block because of two new socks in less than 12 hrs. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No obvious sleepers; range too dynamic and large to allow for an effective range block. -- Avi (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well, with all accounts blocked, time to close. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  11:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)