Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WalterKlaus3/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Master account WalterKlaus3 created the article Danny Lauter in March. It went to AFD, and during the course of the discussion WalterKlaus3 tried to move the article back to draft. This move was discussed and reverted, and the article was deleted on 24 March 2023.

Two days after deletion on 26 March 2023, account User:JimmyJ484 was created, and immediately begins making edits to Brunswick School, identical to those made by WalterKlaus3 earlier: removing a tag from the alumni section, adding redlinked Danny Lauter , adding unlinked Danny Lauter. A few minutes later, JimmyJ484 pastes a copy of the deleted article to Draft:Danny Lauter, which according to User:Vanamonde93 is identical to what was deleted:.

User:JimmyJ484 tries to move the declined draft to main space a few times:, , and links the moved article to Brunswick School alumni section again:.

It's been moved back to draft now, where it's been argued at the talk page that it's eligible for speedy G4, under these unusual circumstances. A forgotten password by WalterKlaus3 seems unlikely, as JimmyJ484 was created about ten minutes before WalterKlaus3's last edit (yes, readding Danny Lauter back to that alumni section). Wikishovel (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Thanks for filing this...I asked WikiShovel to file an SPI, because the suspected sock created a draft that was entirely identical to that I deleted a few days previously, and this draft is of a promotional nature. It could be a college athlete promoting himself, but it could easily be a wider paid/promotional editing situation, and I think a CU check for sleepers would be helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is one anon editor in particular that's been actively editing the second attempt at the article, and posting at its talk page. Wikishovel (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, : I had been hoping there was login data, but if there isn't there's nothing to be done. As I said above I'm convinced as to the behavior, and since I'm acting in an admin capacity here I'm going to go ahead and block: I think this can be closed. Perhaps I should have commented in the admin section to begin with... Vanamonde (Talk) 00:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The sock master has no technical data available that can be pulled for CU comparison. Sorry, but this report will have to be based on behavioral evidence.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you intentionally block only the sock and not the master? Also, could you clarify what needs clerk assistence? --Blablubbs (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, oversight; got pulled away when I was debating how long. I see the master has returned to active editing, so block is certainly justified; however, this also now makes a CU possible. Would you consider running a check? I mark for clerk assistance usually because I'm not fully conversant with tagging convention. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, unsurprisingly., although I'm by no means confident there are none. I'll leave the rest to you since you've already handled the sock. (For tagging, User:Blablubbs/SPI clerking cheat sheet may prove useful.) --Blablubbs (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've given the master a month, and tagged the sock: sock was already indeffed. Thanks for the cheatsheet,, very helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Repeated recreation of Danny Lauter. The recreations are substantially the same text as the deleted articles by the WalterKlaus3. ElizaK89 found their way to Commons to upload c:File:Lauter In the Pocket Against 19th Ranked Lafayette (2023).jpg which they found on this flickr account operated by "walterklaus315" which weas created for license washing. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by WalterKlaus3. Whpq (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2024 (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

 * , as well as are ✅ to the Master. Since this is their second offence, and they were given crystal-clear warnings last time, I'm indeffing the lot. There is clearly a promotional angle here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)