Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Someone65

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Someone65

Someone65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Someone65/Archive.

19 March 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

Pass a Method (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.

(Posted in behalf of User:Wiqi55, who is currently blocked and unable to edit. See User talk:Wiqi55#SPI ~Amatulić (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

User Pass a Method started editing shortly after Someone65 (talk · contribs) was blocked for evasion. I have interacted with this user only recently and noticed that his behavior is identical to Someone65. His evasion of blocks and sanctions also allowed him to use bait and be disruptive towards other editors.

The list of shared articles is long and contains the same mixture of peculiar/obscure subjects (e.g., Lina Medina, Christophe Lemaitre, Symbols of Islam, etc).

I randomly examined some of his edits in religion-related articles and found identical diffs, e.g., [1][2] and [3][4], or closely related ones, [5][6], etc. Since the behavioral evidence is rather conclusive, I did not see a need for checkuser. Best.

"I did not see a need for checkuser", so basically the user wiqi55 wants him banned even before a checkuser is used, it seems he already has marked him as guilty.It also seems like the user wiqi55 has a vendetta against "Pass a Method" (and feels he baited him and got him banned, see line 5) and for that reason I dont think an admin should waste their time to satisfy the vendetta of this banned user--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The motivations are irrelevant; what matters is the fact that there are nearly identical diffs from a user account created a couple weeks after Someone65 was blocked (Pass a Method created 2011-03-10, Someone65 blocked 2011-02-23), and that deserves some investigation. If a checkuser is necessary (as it may be for cases of block evasion), I have changed the status of this case to reflect that. Personally I am skeptical that such a well-established account might be a sock, but valid doubts have been raised. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Well S65 is not me. Some of our edits might overlap because both accounts have made thousands of edits. Nevertheless, the majority of our edits are different. Pass a Method talk 09:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that Pass a Method did not comment until after clerk T. Canens declined using CheckUser. Significantly before that, he was asked to respond...but seemingly declined to do so twice.[7][8] The first two evidence examples (especially the second) are two similar for me to believe that Pass a Method is not Someone65. But I know that this case won't bring him down because that will not be considered enough evidence, even with the timing of his registration to this site. 50.17.128.255 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC), — 50.17.128.255 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

And before Pass a Method mentions it, yes, I am the person in this link. 50.17.128.255 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC), — 50.17.128.255 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

I am assuming the above are socks of wiqi55 (since it only commented on this SPI investigation), in that case you have evaded your ban and i request an admin to look into it. @Passa, you dont need to respond to this spa. if an admin has a question for you, they will ask. Like Amatulic, "I am skeptical that such a well-established account might be a sock"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk declined - Someone65 is Stale. This will have to be decided on behavior alone. T. Canens (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using a dash of magic pixie dust I still can confirm that Pass a Method is using the same ranges that Someone65/Zaza8675 used. Which by itself is not conclusive, I stress. Together with the strikingly similar diffs and very similar edit summaries (judging by a brief look), I do consider it likely the accounts are operated by the same person though.
Different question: Pass a Method has edited for over a year now; do the issues that led to the original block persist?
Any comment, Pass a Method? This is your chance to say what you should have said in an unblock request a year ago.
Amalthea 19:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using a similar range is indeed inconclusive. If he is the same account it seems he ha stopped edit warring, which got him banned--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]