Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Texasmom1965/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
See below. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2022 (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

 * A string of SPAs making a few minor edits and then jumping into the same discussion in a suspicious manner (see Special:PageHistory/Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey, especially ); the article has a history of socking (see here and here, and 2021071910006988). CU results aren't entirely conclusive – they are consistent with either meatpuppetry, or a single individual operating multiple accounts and isolating them by using different networks in the same geographical area. Whatever the case may be, the edit histories and timeline are strongly indicative of abusive coordination at the very least. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
See below. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (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

 * Much the same as last time: CU is unhelpful, and decidedly looks more consistent with coordination than outright socking for BellaRumi1892 (the alternative being pretty good proxy use), but the history of Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey, including specific details of what these accounts are posting there (BEANS and whatnot), makes it pretty obvious that they're connected. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
An account created a few weeks after the previous sock was blocked and that spent a few months making largely innocuous edits (in an apparent attempt to avoid the sock-indicators that had been pointed out at previous SPI reports for this sockmaster) before jumping in at Adam Leitman Bailey to make the exact same deletion as the previous socks, and then escalated the dispute to ANI and ArbCom. I am blocking the account as a sock/meat based on behavioral overlap, which I am not detailing here since IMO the sockmaster is clearly using SPI reports to avoid detection; admins/CUs are welcome to email me for details. Courtesy pinging although I am not requesting a CU since the old accounts are stale and I expect that the new account's will indeed trace to Sussex, UK, just as they claim. Abecedare (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2023 (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

 * per above. Will leave the case open for a few hours in case anyone wishes to comment or object. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW I was considering blocking this account yesterday but wasn't sure if I was allowed to indef someone involved in an open arbitration case. I agree that there are significant behavioural overlaps between this account and previous socks, even beyond the interest in Bailey. Spicy (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have previously checked this account. For what it's worth, there is no clear technical relationship to others in this cluster (this is unsurprising given that previous accounts weren't obviously connected to each other either). There are a few plausible explanations for the lack of technical relationship, but I don't think it matters since this is clearly a good block from a behavioural perspective. regarding the geolocation of any of the accounts involved. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)