Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 01:22, 8 December 2013 (→Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Isaacatm

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Isaacatm/Archive.

7 December 2013

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Sixtyn (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

This is a duck used to covertly add material that has been deleted per Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Olatunde_olalekan. The sock signature edit is: . Other edits are almost solely related to very narrow topic in biochemistry field and match closely edits made by other indef. blocked Isaacatm/Olatunde socks like Special:Contributions/Biomolecules and Special:Contributions/Ainakan. jni (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

other than seeing a biochemistry edit set I don't understand, I see nothing conclusive. Blocked prophylactically and then unblocked with my apologies. There is that one troubling edit. Maybe it's him. Can't be sure. Dlohcierekim 17:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This account was created almost immediately after the other Isaacatm socks were blocked. Do you think it is a coincidence that this new user tweaks references to little-known reseach papers about Solanum anguivi, an article created by sockpuppet User:Biomolecules? The edits appear constructive, but someone should verify the references just in case this isn't some kind of sneaky vandalism/hoax (I haven't done that yet, I have concentrated on deleting the remaining references to this Olalekan self-promoter from Misplaced Pages - except these citations to scientific papers as they might be valid sources even if the purpose of their insertion is to promote this non-notable researcher.) Suggest sleeper sweep to see if there are any more accounts. jni (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. My fellow editors,I thank you all for your impact on wikipedia. I got a notice that am suspected of sockpuppet. I don't see any reason for me to create multiple accounts on wikipedia. And I want to use this medium to tell you that my new account has nothing to do with the suspects; Isaacatm,biomolecules ainakan and any other user or the article about the non-notable researcher. Although my computer had a serious problem due to virus infection and I had been visiting a comercial computer center were I pay to browse per hour. I don't know If any of the above suspects of sockpuppet also uses the same browsing center because its not my juridition to be monitoring anybody that visit the same computer center so I wouldn't know if any one is using the same Ip to abuse wikipedia. Although I appear more like a new user.Am not realy a new user I once have an account on[REDACTED] but I lost the diary that contain the pin and username. That's why I created a new one you see as “sixtyn”. Esteem wikipedian,let's not punish the inoccent ones for what they knows nothing about. And I believe that we all have the same goal. Thank you for the investigation but my user his inoccent of the allegation.(Sixtyn (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC))

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: I have indeffed Sixtyn based on WP:DUCK. Part of it is based on his edits, which have already been mentioned: the addition of "Olatunde Isaac" to the list of biochemists, the mention of solanum anguivi, and the timing of the account creation. However, even more telling was the user's comments here. Why does he say that Olatunde is "non-notable" when he himself added Olatunde to the list? He also seems to anticipate a CU that would confirm the account as a puppet by his comments about IPs and the computer center, etc. There's no reason for him to go into that. In addition, his style is similar to a few of the other accounts that talked (some didn't). Finally, his editing was disruptive. He tagged multiple articles for speedy deletion that were clearly not deletable, almost as if he wanted revenge for the deletion of the Olatunde article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases awaiting review