Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Runta/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Runta

Runta (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date August 15 2009, 21:35 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I strongly suspect that the user above has been using sockpuppet accounts to avoid violating Wikipedia's three revert rule while inserting questionable material. The incidents involved happened over two articles: Puntland and Abdirahman Mohamud Farole. Both articles are related, as one is of an autonomous region in Somalia, and the other is of the president of that region. Here is what happened:


  • On August 12, the newly-created Runta account first started inserting some partially distorted material on both articles (Puntland, Farole 1, Farole 2). I reverted him on both articles, which is when...
  • The also brand new Dantaada account appeared only a couple of hours later on both articles (and no other ones, just like the Runta & User:HotIssue accounts) and reinserted much of the same material that Runta had first added. I reverted this account as well.
  • Things quieted down for two days, with none of the above accounts editing anything. The Runta single purpose account also never showed up again.
  • On August 14, the Dantaada account reappeared, and began reinserting much of the same material as Runta had first added into the same two articles (Puntland, Farole).
  • I reverted him again. Only this time I left a detailed response on his talk page, explaining to him what were the exact problems with his edits. I also asked Dantaada to refrain from disrupting any further articles, and cited for him the relevant policy.
  • This didn't seem to have an effect, as the Dantaada account again inserted the exact same material on both articles less than an hour later (Puntland, Farole) with no attempts made at discussing/justifying his edits.
  • Another user then reverted the Dantaada account's edits, and explained to him what was wrong with them.
  • This too didn't seem to have any effect, as that is when the just-created HotIssue account first appeared and reverted back to Dantaada's version of the two articles.

In short, the Runta, Dantaada & HotIssue accounts are all brand new accounts that were created within days of each other. They all edit the same two articles (and no other ones) and revert back to slightly modified or the same distorted versions of the articles as each other and often within minutes/hours of one other. They also are familiar enough with Wikipedia to understand how to properly format text & typically leave edit summaries, the latter of which often-times sounds similar. For example, Dantaada writes: "some facts were added" and "solid facts added" and HotIssue similarly remarks: "New information added" -- all while reverting back to the exact same version of the article at hand.

Evidence submitted by Middayexpress


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Middayexpress (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  •  Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 03:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Runta (talk · contribs) = Dantaada (talk · contribs) = HotIssue (talk · contribs). J.delanoygabsadds 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All socks and puppeteer blocked at this time. One account may be allowed in due course but will wait to see how puppeteer reacts so as to allow further admin consideration. Also per this request this report at AIV.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 08:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further to the above I have now been contacted by email in relation to these accounts. I am informed that each of the accounts are owned by separate persons living in the same building using the same computer. This has also been discussed with the checkuser. It is not impossible that such a situation occurs. It is my intention to reconsider each of the editing parties contributions and to come to a conclusion as to whether all, some or none of the accounts should remain blocked. I will post my conclusions below sometime today.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Runta/Archive&oldid=1066422522"