Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MJC59/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


MJC59

MJC59 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
21 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

As soon as the main account was blocked for 3RR, the IP address continued the same patter of disruptive editing on

Talk) 21:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Just added

Talk) 23:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I am less certain about

Talk) 23:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

ain't no clearer duck on the planet... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • WP:DUCK case, but I would like to see CU attention to see if there are any other accounts, as the accounts listed were created before the block, so they've been sitting around. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  •  Clerk note: One more thing (to the filer) please note that it is generally inappropriate for checkusers to reveal information about IPs. Such a request would normally be declined, but I revised the request as above. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that

are the same person. There is IMHO enough of a thematic overlap to make this improper use of multiple accounts, I would say. The overlap on that AfD is not problematic though. Socks should be blocked indefinitely, the master account needs more consideration.

WP:DUCK is tricky, and produces lots of false positives if you apply this in disputes like this one.
Amalthea 11:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

That's interesting, I did think about Govynn. So clearly he is the sockmaster as the other accounts succeeded him. WIll you block him as sockpuppet too? — Preceding
talk • contribs) 11:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I leave that decision to another admin. As indicated, I believe this account warrants some consideration. While there is a thematic overlap and at least
Anglo-Cornish was edited by two accounts of the same person, the motivation should be at the core of those considerations. Were the other accounts used to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or create the illusion of greater support for a position? And would blocking the master account prevent future problems? Amalthea 11:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Post-mortem

I'd actually be very interested to know what lead editors to the conclusion that the edits made by these accounts must all have come from the same person? Amalthea 11:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably partially my fault, and I'll learn from this mistake. I noticed similarities in the editing styles and join dates of the sockpuppets, and blocked accordingly. After seeing the
WP:EW block on the suspected master, I didn't look much further and assumed the connection after having been convinced about the sockpuppets. It's unfortunate that this is quite similar to McCarthyism and I attribute it to spending too much time in this area. I'll be a little more careful in the future. I've restored the original block parameters. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • information Administrator note Um... alright. I've blocked Muggetypie as a sock per these findings, but I'm leaving Govynn alone. I think we're done...? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MJC59/Archive&oldid=437284813"