Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morty C-137/Archive

Morty C-137

Morty C-137 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

04 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

D.Pearson (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

D.Pearson is a new account whose only actions have been to defend Morty-137 on United Daughters of the Confederacy, reverting the page to continue Morty-137's edit war when it would have brought them into violation of 3RR: [1]

On the talk page, D.Pearson simply repeated what Morty-137 had said, and neglected to sign his comment, something which Morty-137 consistently forgets to do: [2] [3] [4] Cjhard (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. This is ridiculous, especially given Cjhard's Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding behavior. I have nothing to do with that account. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second the report I was just about to make the same referral. Morty-137 has been edit-warring to insert disputed material into the article United Daughters of the Confederacy. He added it three times June 3 [5] [6] [7] and three times June 4 [8] [9] [10] . (He's probably blockable for EW at this point but I thought I would wait for the outcome of the SPI.) After his third edit June 4, a brand new SPA user named D.Pearson appeared and did exactly the same insertion [11] and made the same arguments at the talk page. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me but since the user has no history of socking I feel an investigation is warranted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The accused has been targeted by socks (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110) so this may be a joe job. A CU would be very useful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possible/ Inconclusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we'll have to mainly rely on behavior. MelanieN, any thoughts on what to do here with the purported master and sock? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. You raised the possibility that this could be a joe job - a phony, all-too-obvious DUCK of Morty. I hate to block anybody based on suspicion when there are several possible masters. How about this: block the suspected sock without specifying who it is a sock of. Based on behavior, it's almost certainly a sock of somebody. As for Morty's edit warring, that is an issue for another venue. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: That's exactly what I was thinking. You want to hit the block button or shall I? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now what happens to this report? It seems a shame to create an SPI archive for a person when nothing was proven against them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: I've marked it as closed. All SPI reports created in good faith should be kept so there's a history for future reference (for potential joe jobs, harassment reports, legitimate socking concerns, etc.) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]