Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zoidberg262/Archive

20 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Zoidberg262 first created their account in 2011 and made 2 edits, the account then became active on 10th Feb 2015 with an edit to Alex Kerr (loyalist) where they put the article up for deletion here. Most of this editors edits have been to the AfD. Two new accounts where created which both backed up Zoidberg262 in calling for the deletion of the page here and here. This article is subject to Active Arbitration Remedies Mo ainm  ~Talk  21:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Zoidberg262 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope proper procedures will be followed as per the above
 * Disclosure - bonylad111 is a university colleague with whom I discussed the Alex Kerr article
 * I will be vindicated once IP addresses have been checked but I insist proper procedures are followed in relation to the checking of such matters.
 * I became immediately suspicious of sock-puppetry when the two named users came out of nowhere with no other editing history but to back up Zoidbert262's request for the deletion of the Alex Kerr article, which by dint of his comments regarding his reasons for the nomination, indicate he has a definite COI on the subject. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I must say I am extremely disappointed and shocked by the behaviour of some editors on Wikipedia. It is apparent that some persons instead of properly articulating their points of view seek to attack and attempt to bully new editors.  It is disappointing that the sole reason for suspicion is the fact that new editors went against the view of more 'established' editors.  I am also surprised that as a new editor I appear to have a better understanding of Wikipedia policy - Jeanne boleyn's comments about 'conflict of interest' have no place on this investigation.  Since that allegation has raised its ugly head here I must respond firmly.  COI defined by Wikipedia's own policy: "This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."  Jeanne boleyn has not stated what external benefit I have to gain from my editorial work, as far as I am concerned I am advancing (in the face of adversity I might add) the aims of Wikipedia, I have copied Wikipedia policies onto the Alex Kerr deletion discussion page for the benefit of all persons involved in the discussion. Zoidberg262 (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You have persistantly stated information about Alex Kerr (such as his real name having been Alec, he was only a minor member of the UDA, he left in the early 90s, he never helped Wright found the LVF) without providing a shred of proof to back up your claims and more than once implied that you had insider knowledge that Mr Kerr felt his life was in danger by this article - which is only using reliable published sources. This indicates a possible COI on your part; I am not the only editor who suggested this. However, this is about your sock-puppetry so we should remain on topic. More than one editor noted the opportune appearance of two single-purpose editors who supported your deletion nomination hence the investigation. We are neither bullying or ganging up on you, Zoidberg262.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "My sock-puppetry" - so much for a fair trial. You were the one who brought up the COI.  I haven't mentioned the fact his name is incorrect since, I looked and there are no reliable sources online, even though 'the dogs on the street know.'  Please show me where I had "insider knowledge that Mr Kerr felt his life was in danger by this article."  All I did, as every good editor should do is review the possibility of harm to the subject, I concluded the possibility of harm was extremely high due to the nature of the topic and the wild allegations and accusations contained within it.  Once again for following Wikipedia policy I am being accused and badgered for highlighting the subjects ECHR Rights.  Even if your sources are 'reliable' there is a fundamental lack of depth of coverage of the subject. Zoidberg262 (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (random passerby comment) Both of the alleged sock accounts were created within a few minutes of each other on Feb 16 and have made only one contribution each which was to the Afd mentioned. has indicated that they personally know the user behind one of the two accounts. It seems more likely a case of meat-puppetry than sock-puppetry. Zoidberg may not know that asking people you know to create accounts and support your position in a discussion here is against policy; perhaps we can assume good faith. Ivanvector (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The old WP:DUCK. You said you told them about the article, and they joined just to voice their opinion, which happened to side with yours. If it looks, sounds, and acts like a duck.. --DawnDusk (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why have comments been censored? They are clearly relevant as this whole investigation is a farce, it has taken well over a month for anything to happen. Removing my comments highlighting inaction is ridiculous. Zoidberg262 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, why has there been a sudden change as to whether a Checkuser should be carried out or not? No new information nor evidence has arisen, surely once you made your original review and deemed there to be "meat puppetry" whatever was going to happen should have happened and then the case closed, rather than leaving the case open for another month and then censoring my comments highlighting this fact. I should add I was not unpleasant in any way in my comments, merely exasperated at the length of time and in light of all other investigations not taking a fraction of the time. Shambles. Zoidberg262 (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks have right to remove comments that are irrelevant to the sockpuppet investigation. Comments are, of course, kept in the page history. Clerks are, of course, free to change their minds, according to the evidence. It turned out that I was right when I changed my mind, since you are now proven sockpupeteer.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , I do not understand why you mention WP:IPCHECK, as that page is inactive. This looks more like meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry to me. Recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited, and you just admitted doing that above. I believe CU check is not needed here, as those are probably different persons, but some administrative action may be needed to stop the meatpuppetry.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  12:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not admit to meat puppetry, all I disclosed was I know the person. I did not admit, and I would strongly refute all suggestions to the contrary. Zoidberg262 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the case again, I believe there is enough evidence to run a CheckUser. But even if the CU shows no connection, those users should be aware that off-wiki coordination on voting is prohibited. Doing this again in the future may result in block.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser comments: The following two accounts are technically indistinguishable and are  to be socks:

As well, the account is  to be related. Risker (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The behavioural and technical evidence coupled with the user's defense leads to the conclusion this is indeed a case of sockpuppetry, which the user tried to pass as lesser meatpuppetry. Master indef-, Bonylad111 as confirmed and Jeanclaudarnie1779  as proven. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)