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

03 December 2017

– An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Phamtson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ollinilsson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EmilyHauer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fdkgh 8475dir geo9utskdj (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

Last month I tagged a couple of articles by Rochelimit as needing copyediting, and when he removed one of the tags inappropriately I told him he should ask someone else to do the copy-editing.[1] Immediately thereafter, several new accounts (all SPAs or near-SPAs) showed up and started editing these articles (which were all newly-created and on fairly obscure topics). When I asked Rochelimit about it, he said he knew nothing about it and that it must just be a coincidence,[2] but this seems incredibly unlikely, and the fact that the new accounts mysteriously stopped showing up (and that the ones that had already shown up stopped editing) after my message to Rochelimit supports the idea that they are connected.
Requesting CU since I believe they might be sock accounts created by Rochelimit to create the illusion that other editors were making the edits that I had said it was a bad idea for him to make (and he stopped using them when I clarified that I meant for him to use the GCE), but if they are meatpuppets (specifically off-wiki friends or relatives) then they would probably still geolocate to the same part of the world and CU can check that.
I recognize the possibiliy that one of the four accounts, EmilyHauer (talk · contribs) (the only non-SPA, who actually made twelve apparently unrelated edits before editing a Rochelimit article[3][4][5]), is unconnected to the other three and to Rochelimit, but it seems at least as likely that it is related to the apparent sock-farm that mysteriously appeared on this article last month as that it has no relation to any sockpuppetry. There is also the fact that Fdkgh 8475dir geo9utskdj (talk · contribs) actually showed up before I told Rochelimit about "asking someone else", though not before I had tagged the article as needing work.[6][7]
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 3 December 2017 (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

•  Clerk endorsed - I'm convinced there's enough here for checks at least; Phamtson seems like a duck case without CU, still considering the rest. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @L235: |I'll leave this endorsed for the moment in case another CU sees things differently, but I don't see enough evidence to run a check, let alone to take any action without a check. A check is particularly unappealing against a long-time editor, Rochelimit (I'm deliberately pinging them because in this instance I believe they should be notified), without a higher level of proof. I also see little disruption caused by these events - more like a tempest in a teapot. Finally, it's ironic that the three editors (Rochelimit, Hijiri88, and Phamtson) all commit grammatical errors in the museum article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]