Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeadSend4/Archive

22 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

The page User:Jane his wife lists User:DeadSend4 and the indefinitely blocked "Jane his wife" as sockpuppets. As well, a search for "04:27, 21 April 2011" at User talk:DeadSend4 will show DeadSend4 conceding at the head of the post, "I am Jane his wife. But I'm going [not] to use that account anymore."

At Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime, which investigated but did not find a direct link between the banned, multiple-sock user User:ItsLassieTime and User:Jane his wife, the investigators note that DeadSend4 admitted he was the banned "Jane his wife". The User:DeadSend4 account only exists as an attempt at ban evasion. Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused by the need for Kaldari's "poke with a sharp stick" remark below even as he notes yet another sockpuppet of User:DeadSend4. I believe DS4 is violating WP:GHBH when I say "evading a ban." Obviously, I'll abide by whatever is decided here, yet I'm honestly surprised DS4 can be so blatant about his sockpuppetry and suffer no repercussions. It doesn't seem fair to those of us who work hard and play by the rules. --12:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * He has served a block already for sockpuppetry. This block expired at 00:58 UTC this morning.  Why do you feel the need to continue to badger him?  Further, the one sock account that is confirmed to be him is blocked, not banned, as an alternate account to DeadSend4, which is his main account (2007) and the one he wishes to edit under.  He wishes to move on, give him a chance to reform himself.  Usually my gut is right about things like this.  CycloneGU (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for 2 weeks for his two sockpuppets already, the block that expired yesterday was for incivility.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  15:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad, I mixed those up. CycloneGU (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * It should be noted that, per a discussion I started in the last hour of this user's block, we seemed to come to an agreement to blank the page and try to start out fresh; it seems, at least to me, like this user really wants to contribute and be helpful but is finding accusations made all over the place and just wants to continue editing with this account, not using the old one. If this is true, I would suggest to the user putting a retirement notice on that user and talk page of the old account, though since the account is blocked it might not be appropriate.  As for the evidence, this is the most recent revision before blanking; surely it will still be found there as that cannot be edited in this form.  If this user wishes to reform as needed and be helpful to the community, I would encourage the user to discuss the issues here calmly and rationally without holding grudges or assuming bad faith.  Per my pre-blanking thread, my blanking the page effectively is meant to put past behaviour behind him and move on with a positive attitude.  I hope this user will do such here.  CycloneGU (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It has already been confirmed via Checkuser that User:Jane his wife was a sockpuppet of User:DeadSend4, and the user admitted it on his talk page. Not sure why this SPI is here. No admin action is needed. You have your facts wrong, Tenebrae, also. DeadSend4 is the main account, and was never "evading a ban," especially since Jane his wife is not a banned user anyway.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point, thanks for the confirmation of what I said before. Appreciate both of your help. With that said, I'm going to refrain and stay away from this person as he has issues with me and in order for me to move on from what has been a waste of my time. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since we already have two confirmed socks for this user, a CU to check for other accounts and possible sleepers would be beneficial. Nymf hideliho! 16:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would just be fishing since we have no evidence that he is using any other sockpuppets. Sleepers were also checked the last time a Checkuser was initiated.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  16:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed DeadSend4 from the suspected sockpuppets list because that a user cannot be a sockpuppet of itself.  EBE123  talkContribs 16:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * What is the purpose of this SPI request? We already know that Jane his wife is a sockpuppet of DeadSend4, and the puppet account has been blocked appropriately. Would you like me to poke DeadSend4 with a sharp stick as well? BTW, Woodstock in Bangock is also a sock of DeadSend4, and has been blocked indefinitely, but that's not news either. Kaldari (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this request just to check for sleeper accounts? Kaldari (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see much else to do in this case (e.g. blocking DeadSend4 doesn't seem appropriate right now) so I'm closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)