Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Victor1500/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Every time User:Skyfall676 or User:Victor1500 add content and is reverted, one or the other account with will revert back usually in the same day or the next. The accounts only/mainly edit the article: Star of Bethlehem. Here, User:Skyfall676 adds content but is reverted by another editor. Then two days later, User:Victor1500 restores back the edit done by Skyfall676. The accounts have edited before in the same article back in 2015 with few days time from each other. I'v also added User:Al Leluia81 since he/she constantly edited the article and anything related to it, and has been in edit wars before in the article. User:Fpapael11, User:Reba, and User:Plinko095 are older inactive accounts created to edit the article, but I want to make sure that any possible sleeper accounts aren't around. JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 My apologies, it's been a while since I had commenced an SPI case and only assumed instructions. I have struck suspected socks #s 2 – 5 user names do to their inactivity/no evidence. However, I would still like to commence with the case concerning suspected sock #1: User:Victor1500. The suspected sock is only a day older than the mistaken master account I opened the case under, but I believe both accounts are related. In the article: Star of Bethlehem, Skyfall676 adds content on Dec. 19th but is reverted by another editor. On Dec. 21, Victor1500 restores the content back:, but no harm done if another editor restores it. However, prior to restoring the content Skyfall676 added on the 19th, Victor1500 had not edited Wikipedia since Feb. 22, 2016 on the same exact article: Star of Bethlehem. Both accounts have a strong interest in editing the article: Star of Bethlehem via their contributions, and a simple "CheckUser" could clarify my suspicions. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2016 (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

 * When you open a case, you open it with the oldest user by creation date as the master. Instead, you've included all of these inactive accounts that are obviously older than the master, which you've apparently chosen somewhat arbitrarily. Even the other active account is older than the "master". You can't change this after the case is opened, though (don't try) - it has to be done by a clerk. More important is you haven't presented sufficient evidence for any of the users except the two active ones. For all the old accounts, all you say is that they edited the article. You have to do more than that if you want their behavior evaluated, which, frankly, I think is a waste of time. We aren't going to block accounts that haven't edited in years simply because they might start editing again (what you call "sleepers").--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Striking the old accounts helps. I'm not sure why you think Victor1500 is "one day older" than Skyfall676. Victor was created on May 14, 2014, whereas Skyfall was created on December 3, 2015, over one and a half years later. Nonetheless, I've reinstated your CU request and a clerk can decide whether to endorse it. Depending on the disposition of the case, the master can always be corrected.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The two accounts are ✅. Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

WP:DUCK at Star of Bethlehem. E.g. at he pushes the unreliable source Hutchinson, same as the sockmaster. Evidence: User:Victor1500/sandbox. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2020 (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

 * I agree that based on the subject matter, the use of the Hutchinson source, and several other behavioral aspects, it's likely that Amazon is a sock of Victor1500. But, they haven't edited in 6 weeks, and the problematic edits were 10 months ago.  It's hard to see how a block could be justified under Blocking_policy, since there's no ongoing disruption.  I also see that Amazon was pushing what I assume is their software product (old sandbox version here) which I don't see the master having done.  That, plus some other behavioral features give me a certain amount doubt as to the sockiness here.  CU would be useful here, but everything's stale.  I'm going to close this for now; if it becomes an ongoing problem, please reopen the case and we can look at it again. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)