05 May 2021
- Tools: Auto-generated every hour.
I noticed these two users editing the same pages (particularly Big Six (law firms)), with very similar edit summaries. I placed notifications on the respective talk page of each user (sockmaster, sock), advising of the policy.
I received a reply on AustralianLawMan's talk page, purportedly from that user, but while the user was logged in as AustralianLegalRankings. In particular, note the reply says 'me and ALR' while actually logged in as ALR. In the reply, the user denies using multiple accounts. For fairness - it appears this user has not yet edited 'in overlap', or used the sock for explicitly disruptive purposes (such as edit warring). However, they are continuing to deny using an alternative account in the face of fairly incontrovertible evidence that they are. They are using the accounts to make the same kinds of edits which are potentially problematic for violating WP:NPOV.
Note that the most recent edit to the page I linked first asserts that the changes have been 'reviewed' by other users, seemingly including the suspected sock in that count.
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Looks like a duck to me don't you just love self-incrimination - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just for completeness (I omitted this from my initial statement), the user has also added a comment on the talk page, challenging the removal of certain content, on the basis that Hate to play the majority card, but two other people than I have a similar view. I believe the third person refers to the IP user User:220.127.116.11 who was just cleaning up some of the edits, and not really endorsing them. Local Variable (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Usually I'd decline this as not socking (no chronological overlap, could be a forgotten password) and uw-agf-sock both of them...but that's been done and they denied the relationship. I'm pretty confident that they're related in some way, and them denying the relationship suggests that they're trying to create the appearance of a false consensus (what with one reverting to the other's final version of Big Six). I am inclined to block for the lying + using multiple accounts to create a false consensus on the "right" version of the page, but I'd like someone else's opinion here. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Eh, screw it - this does appear to be an attempt at false consensus. Blocked and tagged both accounts, closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)