Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pispikrid/Archive

Pispikrid

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

31 October 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

Christian.Kchlng.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Flötenritter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Daarkomdie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Oges (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Muliple accounts whose sole editing interests are the Asechenborn family of articles: Uli Aschenborn, Dieter Aschenborn and Hans Aschenborn. Edits are professional quality. User Christian.Kchlng.2 appears to be sleeper account. WP:DUCK. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to how they meet WP:BADSOCK, "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts", and also "avoiding scrutiny". I am pretty certain this is long-term paid editing as it is so good.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2019 (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

Additional information needed - Please explain how these accounts would violate WP:BADSOCK if they are the same person. For example, Oges (talk · contribs) has not edited for ten years, and Flötenritter (talk · contribs) only made two minor technical edits. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on their further explanation, I'm going to accept solely with respect to Christian.Kchlng.2 and Daarkomdie, on the basis of actual overlap and some behavioral similarities. ST47 (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Daarkomdie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Confirmed to Christian.Kchlng.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Remainder Behavioural evidence needs evaluation, with the caveat that none of the other accounts overlap at all. Blocking the confirmed sock indef, confirmed master for 72 hours, all without tags at least until we have a behavioral decision on the other accounts. ST47 (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I'll further correct myself to note that Christian.Kchlng.2 could be considered the master, as the account was registered in 2018 but made no edits. I'm leaving the blocks as they are, behaviorally Daarkomdie was the first account to edit and the account to make the most edits, so it makes sense for that to be the one that gets the temp block. ST47 (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @ST47: what is the reason for the short-term block for one of the socks? Why not indef for both of them? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a relatively minor first offense. They weren't double voting or revert warring or anything. ST47 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth closing this case for now, it can be reopened if any of the accounts become active again, but for now, there's not enough to go on. ST47 (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]