Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sweethominy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Sweethominy

Sweethominy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · checkuser (log))


06 September 2019[edit]

Symbol redirect vote.svg – A CheckUser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

All four accounts are adding promotional content to the article on Joel Gilbert based on highly questionable sources Daily Mail (RSP entry) and WorldNetDaily (RSP entry) in violation of the verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

Sweethominy first added the promotional content (Special:Diff/901036949/912519320) to the article on 25–26 August, and I cleaned up the article on 26 August. On 6 September, JGoldman76 (Special:Diff/914306698) and RoryWithMunchkins (Special:Diff/914351777) reintroduced the promotional content. When I reverted the additions, HotNateDog undid my reversion (Special:Diff/914358913).

The JGoldman76, RoryWithMunchkins, and HotNateDog accounts all fit a particular pattern: they were created within the last 2 weeks, made just over 10 minor edits in rapid succession, and waited at least 4 days (to gain autoconfirmed status) before making one major edit on the Joel Gilbert article. — Newslinger talk 23:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting CheckUser due to possibility of additional participating accounts. — Newslinger talk 05:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Added IP address 64.183.101.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) due to its similar edits on the Joel Gilbert article. — Newslinger talk 21:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users[edit]

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


How can I help this investigation? I don't know how I got tied up with everyone else because I have nothing to do with 'Sweethominy' and have no affiliation with any of the other people other than coming across the same reddit post and briefly talking about doing wiki for fun, then one person browsed wiki and suggested a bunch of controversial articles to try, then someone else said it'd be faster if people did it in groups, and then only a few people actually did try and edit stuff, then joel gilbert was suggested by someone else who said it looked easy enough, and now I'm somehow linked to this other account when I'm literally just trying to get computer practice. Only reason I've spent so much time on it is its the first page I've spent time on and it really does need to be fixed. So if there's anything I can to do to assure you I'm innocent or what not, please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGoldman76 (talkcontribs) 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Technically  Inconclusive. There are some proxies in play.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

These edits [1][2] make me pretty sure that JGoldman76 and HotNateDog have wiki experience far in excess of their apparent editing history. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)