Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slayer of corrupt/Archive

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

07 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

• Mr. CF (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Duke17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• McBride61 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 173.55.37.52 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki);
• 70.51.45.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki);
• 172.56.30.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki);

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

Discovered this when at

Also, it's probably stale, but

User:McBride61 might be the actual sockmaster. There's an edit by Duke17 moving McBride61's user page, and also look at Duke's most recent deleted edit. (Sorry - I don't know how to link to deleted edits.) - jc37 06:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Added the link to the deleted edit above. Thanks again User:Bbb23. - jc37 09:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bbb23, I didn't realise it worked that way for deleted edits too : )

After going over wordsmith's edits, they appear to write in a completely different style and tone. If technical evidence is there, perhaps it's a family member, but wordsmith's edits are also more prolific and they seem to understand wikipedia processes more than the other accounts, even back in 2007, so, behaviourally, at least, wordsmith doesn't appear related.

Issakenta on the other hand, has another of those boxer images, and appears to be quacking.

Did any of the IPs show as connected? Or did I need to list them here specifically first? I just added them above. - jc37 21:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

• Hmm. I didn't expect the accounts to be linked when I noted the shared location of the IPs, but I suppose it's fairly obvious from behavior in hindsight. I should have been more skeptical to multiple editors and IPs just happening to show up to an obscure CfD. Thanks for filing this report, Jc37. ~ Rob^Talk 05:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • Slayer of corrupt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Mr. CF (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Duke17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Issakenta (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wordsmith (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Technically indistinguishable from the above accounts but  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation.
• I've blocked the four confirmed accounts without tags. After determining whether Wordsmith is behaviorally connected, a clerk needs to sort out who the oldest account is. @Jc37: your analysis of the behavioral evidence would be helpful. As an aside, it's fairly easy to show diffs of deleted edits for administrators. You view the deleted contributions, click on "diff", and copy the URL from address bar, e.g., this one. Non-administrators, of course, will not be able to view it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jc37: Thanks for the information about Wordsmith. Although I don't know as much as you do, my analysis was the same. I'm not allowed to connect the IP(s) to named accounts. However, a clerk can block them based on behavior if they decide it's warranted and they are actively editing. The three you listed are far too old to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: I agree that Wordsmith doesn't appear behaviorally connected. The userpage move isn't itself fatal for McBride61, though it does contribute to a connection. I'm not able to evaluate the deleted edit, so I can't make a full determination of McBride61. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @L235: McBride61's deleted entries are all images of boxers. And not the dogs. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a very close case. To err on the side of caution, I'm inclined to close without action, but let's see where I stand tomorrow with a night's sleep. (Unless someone else does a behavioral analysis before then.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing without action with respect to McBride61 to err on the side of caution; tagged the other socks. There is no prejudice wrt future listing of McBride61 should that account edit again. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]