Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walkwounded/Archive

28 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User:Walkwounded only edits the Liberty (pressure group) and Shami Chakrabarti articles. Some of the edits have been problematic, sanitising the article and in particular they've taken the stance that Chakrabarti has never joined the SDP political party.

Yesterday a brand new account appeared editing the Chakrabarti articles. Although their edits are within Wikipedia rules, their same concerns regarding SDP membership and the timing is highly suspicious for a brand new account and suggests previous experience of the issues. The tone of Aceblaster's talk page comments may also imply previous editing activity with the user writing "Sorry to get involved in this". This is the sort of comment one would expect from a reasonably prolific editor who edits elsewhere here on Wikipedia, yet they aren't "involved" anywhere else on the entire encyclopaedia as the edit in question was their very first contribution.

Other very obvious similarities between the two accounts include signing talk page comments but not actually dating them. Also edit summaries have a similar style and terminology, for example with use of hyphens. The timing of edits is also a reasonable match, with Aceblaster's contributions occurring slightly earlier than Walkwounded's usual editing times, and the two also contributing on the same day. Shakehandsman (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2011 (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
✅ the following are the same:
 * appears to be a different person, but is almost certainly a co-worker/acquaintance of the above accounts. TN X Man  14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all of the alternate accounts indefinitely, including Tannhauser derive. The latter account may not technically be a sockpuppet, but it certainly is a meatpuppet and we generally treat them the same. Walkwounded has otherwise had a clean block record and ignoring the abuse of multiple accounts, I don't see a great deal of disruption, so I've blocked the account for one week. If more sockpuppets appear, or the disruption continues, escalating blocks or even an indefinite block may be warranted. --  At am a  頭 19:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * appears to be a different person, but is almost certainly a co-worker/acquaintance of the above accounts. TN X Man  14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all of the alternate accounts indefinitely, including Tannhauser derive. The latter account may not technically be a sockpuppet, but it certainly is a meatpuppet and we generally treat them the same. Walkwounded has otherwise had a clean block record and ignoring the abuse of multiple accounts, I don't see a great deal of disruption, so I've blocked the account for one week. If more sockpuppets appear, or the disruption continues, escalating blocks or even an indefinite block may be warranted. --  At am a  頭 19:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have blocked all of the alternate accounts indefinitely, including Tannhauser derive. The latter account may not technically be a sockpuppet, but it certainly is a meatpuppet and we generally treat them the same. Walkwounded has otherwise had a clean block record and ignoring the abuse of multiple accounts, I don't see a great deal of disruption, so I've blocked the account for one week. If more sockpuppets appear, or the disruption continues, escalating blocks or even an indefinite block may be warranted. --  At am a  頭 19:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

25 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:Liberty-human-rights behaves in a hugely similar way to all the previous socks. I As with all previous socks it is a SPA exclusively editing articles related to [Shami Chakrabarti]. All accounts repeatedly remove sourced information from the articles whilst also making multiple unsourced claims too. Previously we saw a particular interest in Chakrabarti's former membership of the SDP, something that has continued. User:Liberty-human-rights has also repeatedly deleted almost the entire "personal life" section from the article, again inserting unsourced claims and has even gone as far as removing Chakrabarti's full name and falsely claiming it was unsourced Various false claims were also common features of previous socks

The timing of edits is very similar too, all these various accounts edit during UK business hours, though never before 11am. The only other time the accounts edit is occasional edits close to midnight, a behaviour again seen with user:Liberty-human-rights. Edit summaries are also often quite similar, with a tendency to use a hyphens in sentences, and terms such as "reflect". 

It's probably not all that relevant here, but the username also suggests pretty strong COI issues.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Shakehandsman (talk) 00:23, 25 March 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

 * - - Diffs present a good case but far from conclusive, so requesting CU. King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The master and listed socks in the archive are all, having not edited since 2011. Unless there are more recent socks that can be used for comparison this will need to be decided on behaviour only.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Close without action. I'm not convinced they are the same, and even if they were, Walkwounded hasn't edited since Liberty-human-rights started editing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)