User:Nancy/AGF

Review of evidence of possible sock/meat puppetry by - hereafter referred to as CG  - since June 7th 2008, being the date when he confessed to all his prior accounts and pledged to reform

IP that checkuser confirms link the accounts:
 * - IP of Bridgewater College. Blocked until 23 September. Last edit 24 June.

Accounts which CG asserts were created by a classmate
In an email on 14 August CG claimed that certain accounts which checkuser has linked to 212.219.59.241 were created by a classmate - hereafter referred to as Classmate1
 * 1) Created at 13.30 20 June BST. Welcomed by CG 14.02 20 June BST
 * 2) Created at 13.21 20 June BST. Welcomed by CG 14.01 20 June BST
 * 3) Previously asserted by  to have been created by CG/Chris19910  Account was created and blocked prior to 7th June but is noted here as it was explicitly mentioned in the email
 * 1) Previously asserted by  to have been created by CG/Chris19910  Account was created and blocked prior to 7th June but is noted here as it was explicitly mentioned in the email

CG welcomed two of these accounts, his explanation for this is that it was a friend & they were in class when the accounts were created. The welcomes were the first two edits CG made on the 20th June. Good faith explanation seems plausible - however wouldn't it be more likely CG would leave a proper talk edit than a template?*
 * Bad faith explanation - there were no prior edits on the the 20th June because he was spending the time prior to 14.01 creating sock accounts
 * Good faith explanation - when a class finished at 2pm, Classmate1 mentioned that he had created a couple of accounts & CG logged in to welcome them.

Cross posting from college IP to CG's talk page
At 14.04, two minutes after the second welcome, CG's talk page was vandalised by an anon using the college IP. CG reverted the vandalism at 14.07 Hard to tell, so AGF*
 * Bad faith explanation - both edits were made by CG to amuse himself
 * Good faith explanation - Classmate1 or another member of the class thought it would be the most hilarious thing ever to vandalise CG's talk page.

Other accounts blocked by User:Sam Korn on 13 August as socks of CG/Chris19910

 * 1) Created 9 April 2007. Last edit 10 June 2008
 * 2) Created 3 April 2008. Contribs appear to be constructive and in a specific subject area (football). Last edit 23 May 2008 save for an unblock request on 13 August at 21.20
 * 3) Last edit 2 June 2008. Sensible user page and constructive contributions in specific subject area (music). No edit summaries.

Why has CG not mentioned these accounts?
Good faith explanation seems likely for Jimbosupernova. Possible for the others.*
 * Bad faith explanation - socks of CG which he believes to be under the radar
 * Good faith explanation - accounts created by one of the other 1000+ students of Bridgwater College. Editing style, subject matter and pattern match neither each other nor the known habits of CG

Why would Gedders2008 request to be unblocked within 5 hours of being blocked after not having edited for 3 months?
Greater concern. Not hard to operate a "good hand" account deliberately editing in other areas, even with CG's overall history. Coincidence seems stretched.*
 * Bad faith explanation - Gedders2008 is a sock of CG
 * Good faith explanation - coincidence that Gedders2008 was logged in last night, supported by fact that Gedders' edits are utterly different from CG's edits in every way.

CG's explanation (received after he found and read this page) is that Gedders belongs to a second classmate. CG also says that is an account of Classmate1. GW Simulations turned up on CG's talk page in the middle of the drama so it is possible that GW Simulations tipped off Gedders and/or that GW = Gedders.

*Comments from User:Pedro

Reasons to Unblock

 * WP:AGF
 * Many positive though not outstanding great contributions
 * Control - we can keep an eye on just one account
 * Circumstantial evidence is just that - circumstantial

Reasons to Retain Block

 * Circumstantial evidence of Sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry cannot be ignored
 * Net loss to the encyclopedia is not heavy
 * Wider community may feel an unblock is to great an extension of good faith

Summary
The weight of circumstantial evidence is too great when viewed as a whole and whilst it may not conclusively support the accusation of sockpuppetry the coincidences are too great and too many to rule it out. At a minimum it is likely that there has been meatpuppetry. WP:AGF is a cornerstone of Wikiepdia however with this situation the cost/benefit pendulum has swung too far in to the negative.

Conclusion
Block stands.
 * Endorsed. Pedro : Chat  08:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)