Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.224.51.134 (talk) at 20:04, 5 October 2014 (→Comments by other users). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:04, 5 October 2014 by 99.224.51.134 (talk) (→Comments by other users)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

GoldDragon

GoldDragon (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/GoldDragon/Archive.



25 September 2014

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

No need for checkuser as this is an easy case. BenefactorDubsta is focusing once again on GoldDragon's usual topics of business concepts and leadership issues, and on computer devices. As was typical of GoldDragon, this sock can be found putting his bare url reference into plain brackets, without the HTML ref tag. This new sock returned to some usual articles such as Macintosh which was also edited many times by confirmed sock Limefrost Spiral and by suspected IP 99.238.175.149 which is from the same Canadian metropolitan area as GoldDragon. IP 99.238.175.149 was also interested in the Apple Store just like BenefactorDubsta and Limefrost Spiral. As well, IP 99.238.175.149 was interested in Desktop computer just like BenefactorDubsta and Limefrost Spiral. This case was not slow to dawn on me; rather, the moment I saw BenefactorDubsta show up on some articles on my watchlist I knew it was GoldDragon returning. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

  • Just wondering, has this person actually been doing anything wrong to articles? I know it's socking to evade a block, but if that block was back in 2011 and there's been no actual bad edits since then and this is (as it seems) a genuine enthusiastic editor, wouldn't it make more sense all round to just change the original block to "time served" and let him get back to work? Neatsfoot (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Neatsfoot: They can bring up these points if and when they request an unblock from their original account. --NeilN 15:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
      • That's a fair point. I'd like to see people working together to get this editor unblocked, but you're right, an unblock request should be the way to start it off. Neatsfoot (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Continuing to add original research after being warned: . Edit warring, edit warring, and more edit warring: Vandalism:
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories: