Vanjagenije (talk | contribs) Archiving case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pitcroft |
Not sure if this is the right way or place to re-open the question, but... |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
** {{checkuser|1=FreshwaterIOW}} |
** {{checkuser|1=FreshwaterIOW}} |
||
*Blocked, tagged, closing.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |
*Blocked, tagged, closing.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
{{u|Vanjagenije}}, {{u|Bbb23}}, could you also look at {{checkuser|2=RowlandsCastle}}, a new user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spectre_(2015_film)&diff=689620308&oldid=689617339 posting in the same thread] on the same lines. Many thanks – [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> |
Revision as of 11:10, 8 November 2015
Pitcroft
- Pitcroft (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
07 November 2015
- Suspected sockpuppets
- SolentMan (talk · · 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
An hour after Pitcrift was blocked for disruptive editing on the Spectre talk page, SolentMan began on the same topic. When the similarity was mentioned at the Pitcroft ANI thread (where Samtar was in agreement with the probability of socking), it took no time for this new and novice editor to find their way to the thread to join in the discussion, again along the same lines as Pitcrofts comments. We are, I think, deep into DUCK territory here. SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
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
- Additional information needed - @SchroCat: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
- At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
- At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
- In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
A few bits to consider on this duck:
- An hour after Pitcroft (a UK user) is blocked, SolentMan (a UK user) posts the same argument in the same thread
- How does this "entirely new user" then find a tangentially connected thread at ANI?
- Its very suspicious that this "very new and inexperienced user" defends the master at that ANI thread.
- We can wait around for more WP:ROPE to see how it plays out, but there has been enough disruption from them already to at least justify an SPI check. – SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- @SchroCat: Yes, I understand. But, please, also provide diffs by Pitcroft to show how his and SolentMan's arguments are "same". Vanjagenije (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Vanjagenije, your comment above stated that "In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided"
: that has been provided in what I have written above. Pitcroft has been indefinitely blocked for being disruptive for a series of comments around one theme (such as this); the diffs above show SolentMan in the same theme, and then moving round to an ANI thread like an experienced user. This is a sock. The duck is very quacking loudly here! – SchroCat (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - OK, those diffs now really show similar behavior. I'm endorsing the CU to compare two accounts. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- The accounts are Confirmed plus:
- FreshwaterIOW (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Vanjagenije, Bbb23, could you also look at No username provided., a new user posting in the same thread on the same lines. Many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)