Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Victoria Preobrazhenskaya/Archive

19 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I suspect that User:Victoria Preobrazhenskaya is a WP:SPA whose sole purpose was to advance the article Marina Tsvigun in their self-interest. Today this user had their user page deleted due to the situation outlined here. The article they were making, I thought was to go under the intended name Victoria Preobrazhenskaya, but the user transferred the information to the Marina Tsvigun article. If you look at the history of that article, these user accounts/IPs I've listed seem to also be accounts which have only contributions to the Marina Tsvigun article. I know that's not conclusive evidence, but pay particular attention to the dates they have edited the article ~late successive days in July 2009. I didn't request CheckUser because they could easily have a dynamic IP. Seems pretty likely that the person has been coming back to this wikipedia article over the years and trying to make edits under socks so as to bypass the editor's guard. Obviously I can't be 100% sure but furthermore, if you read the actual Marina Tsvigun article, the author uses 1st person, indicating they were writing an autobiography - which could easily go under WP:COI. All the references seem kinda bogus to me but I don't know. Anyway, I didn't wanna put up the article for deletion because I'm new here and the situation's a little more complicated than first glance and I'm afraid of getting slaughtered. That's all. Thanks. -- Motherfrakker (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

So they're inactive accounts, and were used once, but they were still used. The page has very few edits yet three of the mentioned accounts successive dates used. I suppose there's no point in banning them because they are unlikely to be accessed again, and the user will make more, but it still does not solve the issue at hand which is COI and SPA. I'll file it under COI, thanks for your input, Motherfrakker (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Wow, really? One account hasn't edited since 2006; the other since 2009. There's no abuse of accounts here. Relist if/when there's actual overlap in edits or something. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)