Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ReportersWithoutBordersJournalist/Archive

ReportersWithoutBordersJournalist

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

24 December 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

FACT CHECKER (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

Both accounts have edited Walter Keane to say that Walter and not his wife Margaret was the real creator of the paintings, backing the assertion up with a link to the "first-hand witnesses" source http://bigeyesmovie.com. In fact, ReportersWithoutBordersJournalist's edit to the article was just a revert to FACT CHECKER's version. (See history.) Both accounts accuse Kikichugirl, who was reverting them, of slander/libel/etc, and both claim that Wikipedia's policy supports their actions [1] [2]. I think I needn't say any more but that this looks like a WP:DUCK; I seriously doubt that two different people would behave so similarly, especially considering the relative unpopularity of their opinion. (Do we need CheckUser? I don't know... argh.) ekips 39 07:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Comment by Kikichugirl

User:FACT CHECKER also created Susie Keane's Puppeteens which was deleted for unambiguous copyright infringement. User:ReportersWithoutBordersJournalist created Draft:Susie Keane's Puppeteens which was declined in AfC submission in November. For me, this is

It looks like a duck to me. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I forgot to point that out. Thanks. ekips 39 07:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk endorsed. There's certainly enough evidence of similarities presented to warrant a CU, perhaps enough to warrant blocks based on duck. However, because of a few dissimilarities, which could mean nothing, I'd rather have a technical finding.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real iffy one. CUs would normally call this completely unrelated, but i'm going to throw a Possible. The technical evidence is far from conclusive alone though. Sadly, I can't expand on it either, except this appears to be one account for home, one for the road. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the CU finding and the behavioral evidence, I've blocked the master for a month, and indeffed and tagged the puppet. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: With new evidence available, this is now Confirmed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]