Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlieEchoTango/Archive

29 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

An administrator, User:CharlieEchoTango, acknowledged earlier this evening to using multiple accounts abusively, including the ones listed above, in some cases solely to disrupt and in other cases to hide and then protect clearly biased editing practices. While some folks on his talk page have praised his admission (which was done in response to his being questioned for disruptive editing at a wp:blpn), I think it is reasonable to be certain this was indeed the extent of his attempts to disrupt the project. Obviously, there is also the significant, outstanding question of what to do about the existing accounts and the master account. jæs (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This is in poor taste. CharlieEchoTango freely admitted his use of sockpuppets and resigned his administrator privileges. I don't see why there should be other accounts.  Snowolf How can I help? 05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Poor taste? He didn't "freely" admit his abusive utilization of socks, he did so when his disruptive edits at a wp:blp began to be questioned.  Already he's acknowledged another IP since his original admission, and spending just a few minutes looking I think there's a decent chance that there's at least one more.  It seems beyond reasonable — and not even remotely a matter of "taste" — to understand how extensive the socking has been.  jæs (talk)  06:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but nobody there raised the issue of his socks or suspected them from what I can see. So yes, when called into question for the actions on his main account, he took at step back, looked at the situation and realized he should disclose his accounts and resign.  Snowolf How can I help? 06:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I disclosed all of my accounts to the best of my memory and thus have no objections to this investigation. I'll note that the existing accounts are already indef'd by me, so no action needs to be taken there, and obviously I oppose that my main account (and/or my IP) be blocked, as blocks are applied to prevent disruption, not to punish it. If JÃ¦s wants me banned then that's a matter he should take to the appropriate noticeboard. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 06:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I sent an email to arbcom about this per the header at wp:spi. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * - I can conceive of no reason any rational person would voluntarily disclose some of his socks and ask for a desysop under a cloud, yet leave other socks undisclosed. The socks are already blocked. I don't think a block for the main account is necessary under these circumstances. T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can, unfortunately, conceive of a very good reason: to ensure that there isn't a more thorough investigation of the socking, as we're seeing in this very instance. Following his initial admission, he has since acknowledged — upon further questioning — at least one other account he used to edit disruptively and I believe there is at least an additional one beyond that simply by comparing edits.  He blocked the socks he chose to acknowledge, and has since acknowledged more.  If any other editor of this project engaged in this sort of activity, every account they had edited with, including the master, would be blocked, likely indefinitely.  It requires a certain suspension of disbelief to not further investigate.  jæs (talk)  06:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * after some internal discussion, we have decided it'd be beneficial to have a checkuser investigate this case. I appreciate jæs' reasoning, which is mainly valid (I especially appreciate the argument that it's possible only a few socks were revealed, so as to prevent a full investigation. I do not think we should withhold preforming a full investigation just because of an admission of guilt: this investigation needs to be preformed on the terms of the community, which relies on SPI to carry out such matters. It must not be carried out on the terms of the perpetrator). However, I also believe that it would be beneficial to all parties involved in this to have this cleaned up once and for all, rather than left hanging, and checkuser seems to be the ideal way to do this. Many thanks, and apologies, to the investigating checkuser, who I suspect will have their work cut out looking through this. SpitfireTally-ho! 06:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I had already looked at the CU screen off BN. I don't see any other accounts than those admitted to. Courcelles 06:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)