Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leoesb1032

Leoesb1032

Leoesb1032 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leoesb1032/Archive.

13 January 2014

– An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.

Suspected sockpuppets

• FranklynJimenez777 (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

User:Leoesb1032 has a history of socking, as User:Matthewb103 in April to May 2013, to support an RfC started by Leoesb1032 at Centralia mine fire. This time, User:FranklynJimenez777 was used in a good hand, bad hand manner to perform test edits, allowing Leoesb1032 to issue a warning, and then for FranklynJimenez777 to award a barnstar to Leoesb1032. The strangely formal English used in the barnstar is similar to that of Leoesb1032, not to mention that a new editor has somehow graduated from test edits to barnstar awarding within 25 minutes. FranklynJimenez777 did not award a barnstar to ClueBot NG for the second warning on his page and Leoesb1032 did not thank FranklynJimenez777 for the barnstar, though he engages with everyone else who edits his Talk page, but simply added the text to his User page. The FranklynJimenez777 account was created at 00:48, 12 January 2014 and edits started at 00:51, while there was a gap in Leoesb1032's editing between 00:24 and 01:03. Some of this evidence is circumstantial, I will admit, but considered together I find it rather good evidence. At the very least, we should look for sleeper socks as Leoesb1032 has used at one in the past. Woodroar (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I was very sorry to hear that someone would actually accuse me of this. I learned my lessons long ago. I don't want to risk anything again. I have simply been trying to work as well on Wikipedia as I can. Please, I have done nothing wrong. I have also never given out a barnstar. Proof I was not a sockpuppet is that I used STiki to revert this users edit on the article and it would be extremely unlikely for me to even come across my own edit while using STiki here I remember in my previous investigation, User:Barek found my location and Matthewb103's location, so do this again. I promise we will not be in the same place. Leoesb1032 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't me last time (I don't have access to the necessary technical tools to investigate); but if a clerk believes there is sufficient reasons to justify an investigation, a different admin who has the appropriate tools can compare the technical logs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you know any admins that I could ask that have this log? Leoesb1032 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If one of the SPI clerks see sufficient grounds to require such an investigation, this page will get flagged so that one of the admins with that access will see this page listed as needing investigated. These things can sometimes take a few days to get that far then to be processed, depending upon backlog and also considering that everyone involved are volunteers, and because of the sensitivity of the data being reviewed there are only a handful of users who even have access to the necessary tools. Feel free to make a general statement in this section to whomever eventually investigates, if you wish. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's very bizarre and suspicious that a brand new user would award a barnstar, not to mention know what a barnstar is, in less than a half-hour after their very first edit. [1]--Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I affirm to you all that I am not a sockpuppet and I strongly urge any checkuser looking here to prove it by running location and clearing my username. Leoesb1032 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Others will scrutinize. Two separate terminals alone doesn't mean someone isn't a sock (same city, one work and one residence for example). If you're not a sock, you have nothing to worry about. It's usually the ones who heavily defend typically end up being socks.--Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the last comment that I will leave per Oakshade. I have proof in the contributions that I am not a sockpuppet. See here and here. These are the contributions for myself and my alleged sock. I edited at the same time as he did at 20:22 on the 11th, meaning I could have not signed in and out in less than 1 second. Leoesb1032 (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

How is possible to edit at the same exact time as two different users? Leoesb1032 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Easy: open up two web browsers. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the problem with that statement. I couldn't have reverted an edit using STiki, then gone on to another brower page an made an edit using the other account all in one second. Explain how that would be possible. One other thing, let's have some common sense here. Why would I go to all the trouble to make a socked account, make a test edit on some page, edit that same minute on Stiki, just to throw you off and then just to give myself a barnstar. That's pretty stupid. I'm really not sure why I'm being accused of this. Leoesb1032 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk endorsed - On the face of it, it doesn't really look indicative of sockpuppetry, but combine it with the user's history and the rather unusual awarding of a barnstar and it raises enough suspicion for a check IMO. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

---