Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cybolton/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Cybolton

Cybolton (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
15 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


user:Cybolton First edit: 1:39, 16 June 2013 was to create his user page [1]

User:TechatologyOn 12:35, 4 July 2013 starts reviewing articles at AfC

First edit : 13:43, 16 June 2013‎ was to create his user page [2] - two hours after Cybolton

On 11:59, 3 July 2013 his 7th edit is to award Cybolton a barnstar [3]

His 13th edit is a page move [4]

By 6 July he begins concentrating in earnest on AfC.

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton on 19:27, 5 July 2013 : [5], 03:59, 6 July 2013 [6] declines one on 04:07, 6 July 2013 [7] Thanks Cybolton 19:07, 6 July 2013 for good work [8]

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton 1:30, 6 July 2013 [9]

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton 9:56, 12 July 2013 [10]

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton 20:36, 12 July 2013 [11]

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton within the same minute 20:36, 12 July 2013 [12]

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton 13:34, 14 July 2013 [13]

Accepts an AfC submission from Cybolton 20:35, 14 July 2013 [14]

Both use a similar font and large size <font face="rage italic" size="12" style="color:blue">, and <font face="chiller" size="20" style="color:green" >

Stalk tool[15] shows articles that both users have edited. As one example, this edit history shows a close shared interest, while this history [16] shows shared interest within a minute of page creation.

These users seem to be sitting ducks and I am tempted to block them summarily. However, I'm asking for a CU because in the light of User:Techatology's experience, there may be other multiple accounts and/or sleepers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • If this is a sock-puppet case, it's a surprising one. Why bother to put articles through Afc and approve them? Why not just create the articles directly? Even if these are both sock puppets of a banned user, creating an extra sock to do an unnecessary job just attracted attention. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's so unusual. To create a sock account to approve one's own submissions is a pretty logical ploy. Especially when the one editor is obviously hoping to get noticed for their 'good work' at AfC - that's why I think they are attracting attention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Kudpung, it could well be an attempt to legitimize a sock by pushing an article through the AFC process. Submitters get much more scrutiny than reviewers there normally. Additionally, the articles accepted are not too bad. Certainly better than 75% if what goes through AFC on a daily basis. Before blocking, a discussion with the user(s) would be appropriate. I'd be interested to see the motivation for the editing pattern here. Is it a lack of experience or are they trying to evade review and participation by other editors? Thought looking at the body of articles handled by these two accounts, there is a clear nationalistic theme and a military one at that. These two accounts are really interested in seeing an expansion to the number of articles on the military of the Philippines. If it really is two editors working in very close cooperation, the AFC process should be explained to them and let it go. If it's one person editing with multiple accounts, block 'em.--RadioFan (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked and tagged. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 22:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Account created after Cybolton blocked and [17] contains almost all articles created or edited by Cybolton and puppets. I am One of Many (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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


21 July 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


A new editor who out of the blue creates a beautiful userpage that happens to look very similar to the known sockpuppetteer Cybolton. Marks all his edits as minor, just as Cybolton did with his edits. Both have the same interests. And on top of all, after flagging AFP Modernization Act, Siryuseditor came to the rescue and removed the templates stating that the article was perfectly okay.

The quacking is that loud, that a check on sleepers seems useful. The Banner talk 03:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cybolton/Archive&oldid=1079624323"