Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChanceTrahan/Archive

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• ChanceMFTrahan (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

ChanceMFTrahan appears to be a new account for an account that had been blocked due to legal threats. User is identifying himself as Chance Trahan, one of the people being discussed on the article IsAnybodyDown?‎ He has been editing that article and its talk page. This is the same page whose AFD ChanceTrahan posted a legal threat that brought about his block. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

CheckUser performance requested. Patrolling admin comments requested also. Thank you! ChanceMFTrahan (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked, closing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• AManInWikipedia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 98.165.201.185 (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

WP:DUCK. Like master & sock ChanceMFTrahan this editor only edit articles connected with IsAnybodyDown?. Also suspected sock created Craig Brittain (entrepreneur), article about IsAnybodyDown? Shearonink (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. AManInWikipedia (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I will note that, while I'm not sure that those listed are actually Chance Trahan, it is clear to me that not only is the listed IP the same user as the named sock, but so is User:98.165.218.244. None of that would be a sock violation in itself (an IP user getting an account is fine), but if named user is a block evasion, then this IP would be as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale? 98.165.201.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited less than two weeks ago... World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know a lot more about these things than I do, but if someone uses an IP in August and then again in October it seems to me like it may not be "dynamic" at all. What's the point of blocking the account if the IP can still be used to create new sockpuppets? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the CU request as the accounts are  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: notwithstanding Mr. Brittain's attempt to canvass Twitter, it's pretty obvious to me that AManInWikipedia (talk · contribs) is a DUCK of ChanceTrahan (talk · contribs) and not a meatpuppet, based on the interest in suppressing knowledge of IsAnybodyDown?, a clearly notable topic that Mr. Trahan has in the past attempted to hide their involvement in. Please block. The IPs are probably also related but are  Stale. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@World's Lamest Critic: yes, that makes a dynamic IP stale because they can be assigned to many different users on the same ISP, and may cycle as frequently as a few days. If an IP isn't behaving disruptively within typically the last few hours, blocking is more likely to block an innocent user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]