Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tanya Nelson/Archive

21 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Two SPAs working on the same two articles, with no other edits, sometimes within minutes of each other. Puppet account was created about a week after the master. These two articles are controversial: One was nominated for a speedy, and both have been posted on an external website looking for paid assistance. There are also previous contributions from a blocked editor. Might want to compare to User:Alex Gul'Chencko as well. I'd also point out the behavioral similarity--similar style of edit summaries. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2013 (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

 * Offsite canvassing aside, what abuse of multiple accounts are you alleging? I find it highly likely that these and others may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but what have they done besides edit the same article? Are they backing eachother up on content disputes? Tandem edit warring? The blocked editor you mention was CU'd recently enough that these guys would have been caught in the net, so I think that connection is unlikely. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * - Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You raise a fair point. Both the articles have been edited by a series of SPAs.  Add User:Geoffgom and User:NormalNelly--that makes five SPAs.  The latter has already been blocked for being a sock.  One of the articles, Johan Neerman, has had its neutrality and notability questioned.  And as mentioned, both articles have appeared on an external website looking for paid editing.  So I would say the abuse is creating an illusion of support for neutrality/notability as well as avoiding scrutiny and evading policy re WP:COI.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * NormalNelly was checkuser'd close enough to when these accounts were editing that they should have been uncovered were he their master. It may still be the case, but I consider it unlikely. So let's go with what you have on the other accounts. They are editing the article in tandem. One or more of them may be canvassing offsite for assistance (or some of the SPAs may be the result of that canvassing). But are they acting in concert to win an edit war? To sway discussion on the talk page? To derail dispute resolution? To stack votes in an AFD? I like to approach these situations as so: Let's assume they were all the same person and this was confirmed. What would that change? In this case, I think nothing. There would be strongly worded requests to stick to one account, but I haven't seen anything that would earn administrative sanctions. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I take your point. I don't have anything to add, besides the above, about abuse.  So are you saying basically it is best to do nothing, and keep an eye for more overt abuse?  Thanks.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * - per above. Rschen7754 08:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing, per the above. And yes, if there is abuse of multiple accounts (i.e. votestacking in an AFD, bypassing 3RR, etc.) feel free to re-report. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)