Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TBrandley/Archive

06 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP used to comment on AFD for article created by TBrandley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gene_Belcher

Very heavy degree of overlap in edit topics between IP editor and TBrandley Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2012 (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
Sorry, but we do not associate IPs with accounts publicly. WilliamH (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I understand. I think this is WP:DUCK anyway, but I was just being thorough.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IP blocked 1 week. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

25 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Actually a checkuser may not be necessary but I wanna make sure.  Jay Jay Talk to me 21:25, 25 February 2012 (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

 * because the connection between the accounts has not been established on this page. If you re-list, please explain (with diffs) how the accounts are behaviourally related. AGK  [•] 21:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay well I guess I should have gave it time to see if they acted the same, but on Tate's user page it says its parents account it TB and TB has been editing Tate's account  Jay Jay Talk to me 21:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that is sufficient. In that case, the named accounts are ✅. However, there is no disruptive editing, so you may want to ask TBrandley to use one of these to declare the Tate B. account as a legitimate secondary account. (If he refuses to do so, the account may then be blocked.) AGK  [•] 22:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, well he added a notice of tate's account, however if there is any disruptive editing can he be blocked?  Jay Jay Talk to me 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He can be blocked if WP:SOCK is violated, such as votestacking or whatever. The sock has been marked as an alternate account, so I think we're done for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

13 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

shows that my block on this account expired yesterday, yet the IP is displaying as blocked. This usually indicates that the IP is currently being affected by an autoblock. Since TBrandley is both under an editing restriction related to the creation of new articles and has a history of socking, I'd like a checkuser to check for accounts being used to evade his editing restriction (and apparently be abusive in other fashions, given the existence of the autoblock). As for "publicly linking the IP", notice that TBrandley himself linked the IP's userpage to his own, so there is no privacy infringement in that regard. &mdash;Kww(talk) 11:27, 13 April 2012 (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
It looks like the IP block you placed has not expired. When I click on, it shows that block expires Monday the 16th. You listed the block expiry as Monday the 12th, but the 12th is not a Monday. It looks like the interface read the day (Monday) and not the date (12th). When should this have expired? TN X Man 13:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to extend it, so it doesn't matter much. If I just screwed up and there's no autoblock in place, we can close this.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking for close -if there's more activity, please feel free to refile. TN X Man  13:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)