Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valleyside show/Archive

Report date April 20 2010, 23:38 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * ]
 * ]
 * ]
 * ]

Removal of content without discussion at Charles Harrelson. Same removals. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by -- Mufka (u) (t) (c)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

The history of Charles Harrelson looks to be crawling with edit-warring socks. I put it under full protection to stabilize the situation, added a few more accounts to check, and am submitting this for checkuser. Sam Degelia is unlikely to be the sockmaster, but he is a single-purpose account edit-warring over this article, so I am interested if any of his allies are footwear.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Requested by User:Kww. for checkuser attention on all the named accounts for the purpose of a sleeper check + confirmation of any link/s between the accounts. Not endorsed for a check on, who seemed to be adding the information back in. SpitfireTally-ho! 12:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I agree that Sam Degelia is working against the main sockmaster. The problem I had when reviewing the article history is that while there are obvious candidates for socks of Valleyside show (their SPA nature gives them away), there aren't obvious candidates for Sam Degelia, as every editor working with him has edits in other articles. Looking at Sam Degelia, I remain convinced that he's a sock of one of the other editors in the article's edit history.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One interesting thing about that account (Sam Degelia) was that I couldn't seem to pull up the user creation log for it (although popups place the creation date at 2009-02-14), not sure if anyone else is having the same problem. I'm going through the article now trying to see if there were any editors there who were supporting him, but can't seem to find any (probably I'm just not looking closely enough), if you could name them that would be useful. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 16:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had missed Andrewthomspson, 96.255.48.74, Tina2970 and Loonjustice in the probable sock list, so I added that. As for Sam Degelia, I see your point in terms of named editors. It appears likely that he is or, but doesn't seem to be getting support from named accounts.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that he might be one of those IPs, but even if he is, registering an account after contributing anonymously for a while isn't against policy (that would also explain why it looked like he was not a new user). I'm slightly doubtful about whether or not he is editing under a different account, as I think that if he was he would have used that account to support his editing on the article in question. Well, in any case, if you'd like a checkuser to look at then I'll be more than happy to poke another clerk (or a CU) for a second opinion, up to you.
 * Also, thanks for your diligence in regard to looking through the (quite extensive) article history for further suspected socks, and for protecting the article.
 * Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Group 1
 * ✅ Group 2
 * Geolocation indicates that it is possible the following account is related to Group 1. Behavioral evidence will be necessary to draw stronger conclusions.
 * ✅ Group 2
 * Geolocation indicates that it is possible the following account is related to Group 1. Behavioral evidence will be necessary to draw stronger conclusions.
 * ✅ Group 2
 * Geolocation indicates that it is possible the following account is related to Group 1. Behavioral evidence will be necessary to draw stronger conclusions.
 * Geolocation indicates that it is possible the following account is related to Group 1. Behavioral evidence will be necessary to draw stronger conclusions.
 * Geolocation indicates that it is possible the following account is related to Group 1. Behavioral evidence will be necessary to draw stronger conclusions.

-- Avi (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you can't find any of that magic pixie dust to make this all simpler? Group 1 is clearly a problem, and needs blocking. Group 2 has a definite time-gap between edits, and probably can't be said to be socking ... they dropped an old account and made a new one. Sam Degelia himself probably isn't a part of group 1 (see the discussion between Spitfire and myself above). I'd put the Inconclusives in with group 1, and leave the stales alone unless they come back. The target article is protected, so we can think a bit before handing out the blocks.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to ask another CU to review my findings, I have been known to be wrong 8-) -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd know better than I whether the "inconclusives" were extremely ambiguous or just not crystal-clear. I'm assuming this is just one of those cases where checkuser doesn't provide a clear answer, and we'll have to figure out what to do with an unclear result.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly :) Behavioral evidence is often more conclusive than technical :) -- Avi (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, based on WP:SILENCE, I'll proceed with my suggestion. People should check this carefully, as I'm new at this.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A few edit conflicts as Spitfire was tagging a bit faster than me, but all done.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * well, all necessary blocks seem to have been given out, accounts also tagged appropriately. Speaking as a non-admin (and congratulations on your RfA by the way ) I agree 100% with your conclusions in blocking these accounts. SpitfireTally-ho! 00:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, and sorry for the edit conflicts. >_> SpitfireTally-ho! 00:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)