Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneymarsh/Archive

Hackneymarsh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

12 September 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• Historyset (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 217.155.38.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 90.196.154.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The Guardian newspaper has identified several IP addresses and user names that appear to have been used by the British politician

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

There's nothing of interest here. The information is stale and the use of the named accounts is serial not simultaneous. Nothing can be gained by adding to this political storm in a teacup.--

Hackneymarsh and Historyset only made edits to a single article, within a span of hours. Given that allegations are being made by a national newspaper that these are the activities of a senior member of the government, that is certainly enough to merit checking. —

(❝?!❞) 12:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems quite possible that the accounts belonged to different people – e.g. the biography subject and a member of their staff – who got drawn into this because the article was an anonymously written hatchet job. At any rate, note that both accounts and both IPs stopped editing Wikipedia more than two years ago. This is consistent with what Shapps told the Daily Mail: "these days when I see stuff that's blatantly wrong on my Wiki page, I just shrug my shoulders. If people want to claim I'm a Jehovah's Witness, agnostic or crashed a car into a school wall—all real edits I'd previously changed—then I just leave them to it." But yes, let's have some more dramah, why don't we. JN466 12:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be lacking of us in the extreme to not fully investigate matters on our own turf that the national newspapers have found of sufficient interest to shine a light on. —

(❝?!❞) 14:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You do realise the checkuser data are long decayed, right? You can't checkuser an account that has not edited in over two years. JN466 15:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. Do you think I would have filed this if I did? It doesn't say that on

(❝?!❞) 15:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Closing as stale and per filer's request.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21 April 2015

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.