Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mckburton/Archive

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• Joshwond (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

Mckburton created a hoax page 2015 New York poisoned turkey incident, while Joshwond added the link to that page to the List of foodborne illness outbreaks. Both cited the same dubious source [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanjagenije: First I'm the editor who nominated the article for speedy deletion. I did some homework before doing so. The source for the article fails WP:RS and not one mention of food poisonings in the news media. A editor can make a good faith mistake. Some editors can be fooled into thinking a hoax is for real. Check this AFD[2] and its resounding followup here[3].

To be honest I think your basis for a sockpuppet investigation is very thin. Editor B sees article created by Editor A. Editor B thinks linking other articles to new article a good idea. He does it and uses a source from the new article too. Referencing something is good and what other source was editor B to use?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: As a SPI clerk, I have some experience with such cases. It is highly improbable for a new user to find such an obscure article as soon as he is registered. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Vanjagenije:That reasoning doesn't work here. Mckburton's account goes back to June 2015 and this wasn't their first created article either....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Clerk endorsed - endorsing my request. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The following accounts are  Technically indistinguishable:
  • Mckburton (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Joshwond (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Rebecca bohm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Jenniohra (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]