Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hstudent/Archive

Hstudent

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

16 April 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Epm-84 (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

I have been involved in a debate on the Northern Rail talk article since March 27th. Epm-84 stated his viewpoint on the subject - however after a few days from my last message in the discussion on April 11th - a reply came from Hstudent. I was immediately suspicious so I checked the contributions of both Epm-84 and Hstudent (which appear to primarily focus on the City of Manchester, weather presenters and UK rail articles) - and I think that they are extremely similar. In my view the grammar used on both accounts is also extremely similar (Contributions/Epm-84 and Contributions/Hstudent). I suspect that the two accounts belong to the same person - and they have used both of them in order to make it appear that other users support their viewpoint on the subject that was being discussed

Hstudent has also been suspected of being linked to Sheliaval (see here) in the past - although Sheliaval has not edited since September 2011. I also think that Sheliaval has very similar grammar and contributions (Contributions/Sheliaval) to Epm-84 and Hstudent - Coradia175 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence #1: I have since voiced my suspicions on the Northern Rail talk page that both Epm-84 and Hstudent are the same person on two occasions (on April 20th and April 21st). Neither account has denied that this is the case at both opportunities (April 21st (1st reply) and April 21st (2nd reply)) and has in my view completely avoided responding to my suspicions that both accounts belong do the same person - Coradia175 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence #2: I set a deadline for voting on the subject for April 14th - and at the time I set this deadline the general consensus was 2-1 against Epm-84's side of the argument - this consensus being the result. A day after the consensus was reached Hstudent joined the discussion (without previous contributions to it) and claimed that the deadline I set was "insufficient" and in my view tried to force a change in the consensus in Epm-84's favour by claiming the consensus was "2 for, 2 against" which it wasn't as the deadline had passed. In my view Hstudent's attempt to alter the consensus after the deadline shows that Epm-84 cannot accept their side of the argument was lost

I also find it unusual that neither user has commented on the same day - or within a reasonable amount of time of the other— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coradia175 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at their contributions it is clear both of these accounts have edited a lot of pages of the same theme. Looking at this it shows that both accounts have edited twenty pages in common which are all on the same topics (UK railways, the City of Manchester, John Bishop's Britain and local weather people). I just can't see it being a coincidence that both accounts have contributed to twenty articles in common which are all on the same four subjects. Looking here both accounts used the exact same edit summary five times between them on the exact same section of the page. These were on 02/07/2009, 23/09/2009, 13/04/2011, 03/12/2011 and 26/09/2014

On the Manchester Airport article - this shows both accounts have both reverted edits (Hstudent on 22/05/2008 and Epm-84 on 31/12/2008 and 02/07/2009) using (in my view) the exact same argument to justify why they reverted the edits

On the Chorley railway station article - both accounts were involved in a dispute over the removal of information (here). Including this and this - I think that the edit summaries from both accounts are far too similar on all three of those examples to believe that they are two different people - Coradia175 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I Endorse the accusation. On the face of it the duck test is met. This was initially brought to my attention on my talk page and I advised Coradia175 that it seemed a likely sock. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk note: @Coradia175: You have to present some stronger evidence of sockpuppetry. What you presented is not very convincing, just that they supported each other in one discussion. The fact that they have similar grammar may just mean that they live in the same area. We need something more. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: @Coradia175 and Mjroots: The evidence you presented is simply too weak. If they are one person, why would he wait for the deadline to pass, and only then make a second comment? That doesn't seam logical. Also, both those accounts are years old and have more than one hundred edits, yet in all those years they had edited only one common talk page (see: [1]). If those two accounts are operated by same person, why would he wait six years to start using those two accounts to support each other on talk pages? That also doesn't sound logical. And the fact that they did not deny accusation is not really an evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Yes, I see. They do edit same articles. They often edit same sentences in articles in short time-span ([2] and [[3], [4] and [5], etc). Vanjagenije (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically Confirmed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sock blocked, account blocked for a week. Mike V • Talk 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]