Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BoiledCable/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:BoiledCable

[edit]
BoiledCable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

BoiledCable

Report date February 10 2009, 15:03 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by —Snigbrook

These new accounts have all added dubious and probably false information to articles, with misleading edit summaries. The first two appear to be obvious socks (similar user and talk pages, [1][2][3][4]). Edits by BoiledCable: [5][6], by JeremyKeith1956: [7][8], by KarenRichards: [9][10], and by SteveParker1980: [11][12][13] are all similar.

A second group of accounts has made edits that are more obviously vandalism:

These two groups may be related, as both have used misleading edit summaries, I can't see any more but there may be others that have not been noticed. —Snigbrook 15:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another group that has made similar edits to the second group listed here (although they all created user pages similar to JeremyKeith1956 (talk · contribs) of the first group:

All created a user page and talk page, then vandalised an article by adding a random image. —Snigbrook 18:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another (Painted Hair (talk · contribs)) created just before the five new accounts. —Snigbrook 18:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

All users seem to follow the same trait of misleading edit summaries, but there could be two different groups involved: One group seems to target images and another misleading statements. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 10:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests

{{RFCU|F|No2ndletter|Declined}}    Requested by —Snigbrook 15:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  •  Additional information needed please provide an specific explanation as to why a CU is required in this case. If strong behavioural associations tend to suggest the presence of a WP:DUCK, no CU is needed. Mayalld (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk declined As agreed with reporter, CU is not immediately necessary. Without prejudice to relisting for CU later, this case can be handled as a regular SPI case for the present. Mayalld (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

 Completed

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Mayalld (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BoiledCable/Archive&oldid=273259183"