Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sussexman/Archive

29 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Not sure if there will still be any checkuser data available, but due to Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman and also lengthy analysis of the checkuser data by ArbCom when dealing with (apparently) multiple appeals there's a possibility. The 81.131 prefixed IP is certainly not dissimilar to the many 81.131 prefixed IPs mentioned in the Sussexman checkuser. It's reasonable to assume that IP is also TomTower based on the history of Traditional Britain Group, where the IP takes over for multiple edits within 15 minutes of its creation by TomTower, then TomTower returns to editing afterwards. Per the Sussexman checkuser and additional discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive127 (particularly regarding the Robert I arbitration case) there's a connection between David Lauder and his socks and right-wing political activist Gregory Lauder Frost, and the conflict of interest and self-promotion got briefly brought up on the ban discussion. TomTower's article edits to date have been to Conservative Democratic Alliance (Gregory Lauder-Frost was on the committee), Traditional Britain Group (Gregory Lauder-Frost is the vice-president), and an edit to List of organisations associated with the Conservative Party regarding Traditional Britain Group. Some might say that creating an article without categories isn't something an experienced editor tends to do, I say it's something done often by David Lauder. I realise that isn't evidence of sockpuppetry in itself, but it certainly counters the argument that it isn't sockpuppetry. The tone of TomTower's posts is eerily similar to David Lauder's (see the history of his talk page and pick any version with lots of information on it dated after 13 February 2008), in particular "Please see my talk page where his arrogance about his deliberate wrecking actions against this page are astonishing" and "Had I wanted to be a wrecker would I have made those efforts?". Similar tone, similar IP, same old articles (note that Traditional Britain Group is a recreation of a previously deleted article), looks like a sock to me. 2 lines of K 303  16:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I'm no expert, but I hear quacking noises as well. The timing of edits, IPs and content are a strong argument, as is the overall tone.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
David Lauder is and as far as the other two go, checkusers generally do not disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. TN X Man 14:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, this case should be archived under Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman - A l is o n  ❤ 23:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record this case has been moved to the correct location and can be archived normally when it's done. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This needs to be closed. Ok, I've had extensive dealings with the Lauder/Sussexman case over quite some time. I'm calling this one ✅ based on a number of factors. I've emailed Tnxman307 with my rationale already - A l is o n  ❤ 20:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And per Alison, TomTower has been blocked and tagged. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)