Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theatombombexploded/Archive

18 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I came across this article via a request at BLPN, where Hallway monitor asked for someone to step in as people were trying to create a criticism section based on stuff via non-reliable sources like ratemyteacher.com. (Although I do need to note that the page could use some general editing for NPOV as it is somewhat promotional.) From what I can see, this was first added by Theatombombexploded back in 2013, so I know that some of these can't be checked as far as edits go. Since then there has been some straight up edit warring over the information in the article, mostly someone removing the section and someone re-adding the content. Here's an example of this edit warring. I'm tempted to just block all of these as socks of one editor, but I'm slightly concerned that they aren't one person but a handful of students doing this (meatpuppetry). I've semi protected the page in question for a week, but a check of these accounts couldn't hurt. I don't want to tag them all as socks if they aren't socks. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:05, 18 December 2014 (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
Several of the editors that Tokyogirl79 has listed look to me like common or garden school-child vandals, probably quite independent of one another. For example, this and this seem like ordinary school kids posting silly things about their school. However, Airplanesseatac, Wisdomicuser, Sorrymr.beardbutineedtosaythetruth, and 50.132.77.43 are a different matter, as they are clearly all contributing to a concerted campaign together. More likely different people than one, as I see no obvious reason why one person would want to use several accounts: none of them have been blocked, or warned about edit warring, or given any other reason to think that editing from more than one account will help them, as far as I can see. However, to me the most important thing to do at this time is to make sure that the editor(s) know(s) that unreliable sources and edit warring are unacceptable, rather than to worry about whether they may be meatpuppets, so I have posted to the user talk pages of the accounts, explaining that we do not accept publicly-edited sources as reliable, and, in the case of the one account which has repeatedly posted to the article, explaining that edit warring is unacceptable. (Incidentally, I would have semi-protected the article for more than a week, but maybe Tokyogirl79 is right to try a fairly short protection first.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

One more thought. There is just as much evidence, in my opinion, of possible sock- or meat- puppetry on the other side of the dispute, as Hallway monitor, Dynamoreader, and Usernamed666 are all SPAs working to remove criticism of the school. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That concerned me as well, I must admit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm closing this with no action. I think the two admins who've commented here can work this out by sanctioning editors who are persistently disruptive. Many of the named accounts have not edited in months. A couple edited maybe once in mid-December. The only way to find socking here is to do a CU of those accounts that are not stale (master is stale as well), and I don't see the necessity for it (other than curiosity).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)