Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msloewengart/Archive

Msloewengart

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

18 January 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

AirportExpert (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

The account User:AirportExpert was created on January 4, 2014, during a 48 block of User:Msloewengart, for edit warring. Msloewengart was recently blocked again, this time for one month, again for edit warring, and during this time AirportExpert has begun to edit. AirportExpert’s first edit was to Allegiant Air, a page previously edited by Msloewengart. Two edits later, AirportExpert provided a non-free use rationale for [File:An_Aeronaves_TSM_((DC-9.jpeg], an image that had been uploaded by Msloewengart. The two have also edited Delta Air Lines fleet in common, a total of 3 overlaps out of the 6 total pages that AE has touched. Finally, AE so far has edited only aviation-related articles, like Msloewengart.

I confess that I am not very familiar with airline or airport pages so I cannot readily say that AirportExpert’s edits are the same type of edits as Msloewengart. I do note that AE self-reverted once here, something I’ve noticed Msloewengart doing as well (example). Everyone self-reverts from time to time but this jumped out at me.

In short we have: An account created during one block of the main and becoming active only during a second; identical subject matter interest, notable overlap in same pages edited (including an image - very unlikely by coincidence), and one slightly idiosyncratic editing characteristic in common. It looks like block evasion to me, and worth a CU to confirm – or exonerate. I am notifying AE of this report. JohnInDC (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to admit the puppetry here. I leave it to the reviewing admins to evaluate the propriety of creating and editing from a new account while the old one is on the front end of a lengthy behavioral block. JohnInDC (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Bocked indef per the admission of socking on his talk page. Any admin should feel free to unblock at most one of these two accounts if he becomes willing to negotiate about his future behavior. The problem with User:Msloewengart was his continued mass addition of airports to city infoboxes, contrary to the consensus found at a discussion thread.

Assuming there are no additional socks, this SPI might be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The results of the CU would not change the outcome, so closing. Rs chen 7754 08:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]