Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valkyrie Red/Archive

Evidence submitted by BusterD
User has recently been blocked by an uninvolved administrator as edit warring and disruptive on Battle of Gettysburg; suddenly a newly created account (a new account which admits it shares the same ip address as User:Valkyrie Red) appears on the article talk page to support the blocked user's position. Like Valkyrie Red, the new user can't seem to correctly sign talk contributions...

Apparently, the User:Abl3igail account was also used to support an unsuccessful page move request on United States originally initiated by Valkyrie Red. In this case as well, the user failed to correctly sign the talk posting (much like Valkyrie Red's editing pattern).

I might be wrong, but to my view, it appears the new account is a sock currently being used in order to go around a valid block. BusterD (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Currently, the Abl3igail account is being used to prolong and personalize the discussion on casualties on Talk:Battle of Gettysburg, just like the User:Valkyrie Red account has been used recently (and for such reversions was blocked and repeatedly declined unblock). BusterD (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Suspect puppet account has only edited in spaces previously edited by master account, and suddenly puppet account has begun to edit casualty figures on Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, just as Valkryie Red has done before. IMHO, a prima facie case has been presented that the two users are linked by pagespace, type of contribution, ip address, and content of contribution. Now that the sock account has begun an edit war of its own at Battle of Spotsylvania, I'm hoping this gets some speedy investigation. BusterD (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that I've declined to notify either user of this proceeding, not wanting to give an inexperienced abuser more ways to game the system. I also failed to notify the user when I raised username on AN/I (a serious matter); I have reason to offer regrets to the community, but can't see any reason to continue sympathy for the master user. I've totally exhausted my good faith dealing with this dedicated disruptor. BusterD (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
The user's sequence of actions is suspiciously very similar to Valkyrie Red's: (1) Limit attention to summary boxes of major Civil War battles, neglecting similar information in the main part of the articles; (2) modify cited result or casualty fields, usually just deleting the existing citations; (3) react to reversions by posting complaints to the Talk page about procedural issues--not about the substantive historical issue, but the fairness of who is allowed to determine what information is presented; (4) interpret temporary silence on the Talk page as an indication that his view has prevailed. I think that the sudden emergence of a new user employing such similar tactics immediately following a user blockage is strong circumstantial evidence that it is the same person. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Per WP:DUCK I've indefinitely blocked the suspected sockpuppet account. I've not adjusted the main account's existing block, which is set to expire in two weeks from January 20. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)