Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tenod888/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The Janna788 account showed up out of nowhere to repeatedly blank material at the Foreskin article; see here, here, here and here. The Janna788 account last edited the article at 06:01, 3 October 2017. At 06:20, 3 October 2017, the Donik767888 account showed up out of nowhere to engage in the same type of blanking; see here and here. The Janna788 account was indefinitely blocked at 10:53, 3 October 2017 while the Donik767888 account, after being reverted, decided to go to the article talk page at 15:33, 3 October 2017 and make the same type of comment that Janna788 had made there. The Janna788 account stated, "Why is Taylor et al. soruced so many times? It is clearly biased and coming from mainly one group." Similarly, the Donik767888 account stated, "One example of facts not being checked is Taylor et al. which is cited three times under function. Taylor et al. was never fact checked by reliable sources and the people who have disagreed have been removed from the page which again seems like the tone is not neutral." This can seen with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreskin&oldid=803783940#Reorganization_of_functions_section. this link.] In that link, you can also see that I confronted the Donik767888 account, informing the editor of the WP:Sock policy. Donik767888 stated that he (or she) is not Janna788, but that he (or she) "made an account when this person informed me about this page." Since Donik767888, the relatively new Antron199 account has shown up to focus on the same section; see here, here and here, for example. So it's clear to me that we are dealing with a WP:Meatpuppetry issue if this is not a WP:Sockpuppetry issue. The article is usually not actively edited, and yet these accounts started popping up to focus on the same material, with one admitting to being pointed to the page. I think it would also be good to check the accounts for WP:Sleepers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * this definitely quacks and I had drafted an SPI as well but not filed it. The oldest account is Antron199. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Because I barely have any evidence on Antron199, I decided against using that account as the sock case name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The accounts have a very strong correlation w.r.t. foreskin and removing large amounts of text from that article which they consider to be of unreliable source. The behavioural connection is strong but the diffs are not exact matches. Further, the mobile web edit, mobile edit tags are almost synonymous with all three of them - which is too much of a coincidence.  QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 19:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Depending on the CU result, we can change the sockmaster, that's no big deal. Janna788 and Donik767888 comparison is the one we need to see (again, see the username patterns).  QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 19:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Following are ✅ to each other:
 * , closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Exact continuation of the behavior in the prior case. Similar user name. First diff, edit note Not a very reliable source, published in 1994, continued removing sources just like the others, for example this diff, edit note 1996 is many years ago and may not be as reliable in 2017 Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2017 (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

 * - Given the evidence above sockpuppetry seems likely. The last case turned up several sleepers. Please check to confirm and find any other accounts. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Katietalk 16:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, no visible sleepers. Katietalk 16:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tagging and closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)