Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talikarni/Archive

10 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Each account has very few edits and each has posted similar screeds at Talk:White pride, similar to the suspected master's at ANI. The last three were registered just today. I suspect this is an effort to manipulate discussions on this topic. However the "master" has few and spread out edits so I would not be surprised to find it is actually a sock as well. Please check for evidence of multiple account abuse and for sleepers. BethNaught (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I was watching a few of these. I think they might be meat puppets more than socks. There's discussions on Reddit about those pages that are attracting editors and SPAs to the pages.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The technical data is . However, I've blocked all of the accounts based upon the behavior. No additional accounts found at this time. . Mike V • Talk 23:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

11 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Talikarni, an account registered in February 2012, reappeared after not editing since 2014 to argue on the talk page of White Pride that the article was biased against White people and that the article should be "taken down until a factual legitimate piece can replace it without the anti-white racist perspective..." in this diff. They also raised this at ANI.

This follows on from the edit on 10 February by Cmjohnson65, an account registered in November 2007, which reappeared after a 1 year hiatus to blank the White Pride article in this edit and replace it this statement in a subsequent edit. Blackmane (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Given that there is some fresh meat from the previous SPI above I think a checkuser is needed here as well as a behavioural check under WP:DUCK. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked the account for disruptive editing. Given the reddit thread, meatpuppetry seems to be the issue here. Mike V • Talk 01:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)