Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some/Archive

Evidence submitted by Georgewilliamherbert
Gerbelzodude99 created a new account on Nov 26 and proceeded immediately to file a properly formatted AFD request on Shotgun Man, then an ANI complaint against User:IP69.226.103.13. It was clearly evident that this was an experienced user and not a brand new account, based on sophistication of use. I advised them on ANI and their talk page that they were violating WP:ILLEGIT using a sock account to edit project space, avoid scrutiny, and in a good hand / bad hand role. I offered to avoid further sanction if they identified themselves, and when they did not do so indef blocked the account.

They have subsequently stated on their talk page that they were an IP editor before, are not a sockpuppet, and had gotten familiar with the project that way, and invited a checkuser investigation to clear their name.

I am unwilling to unblock based on the totality of evidence so far - I can't AGF given the evidence. However, their claim somewhat complicates the situation. Either it is true, and I overreacted, or it's not, they are in fact an established user using good hand bad hand, and they're trying to keep up the facade after warnings. If it's the latter, then further action may be required (and if it's the former, I should unblock).

I believe a CU is appropriate to disambiguate the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's sixth edit was to report me at AN/I for stalking him by responding to his first ever edit on wikipedia, a properly formatted AfD. I think he forgot he was signed into his brand new sock when he posted at AN/I, inadvertently forgetting he'd only made two edits on this account (the AfD and the AfD log) when I responded to the AfD, and that it wasn't possible to stalk him unless he'd made more edits.

It's not a usual complaint that someone stalked your first edit on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike 03:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Asking for a second opinion. -- Avi (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * - No likely sockpuppets found on IP used by Gerbelzodude99. -- Avi (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Report date December 28 2009, 17:56 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Editing pattern of these three users makes me think that there is definitate sockpuppeting happening here. User:Gerbelzodude99's first contribution was and AFD, and User:Drawn Some frequented AFD, User:Drawn Some stopped editing in September 2009, shortly thereafter User:Torkmann started heavily editing. Torkmann's second day on wikipedia consisted of nominating an article for deletion that was connected to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (who User:Drawn Some had conflicts with), another afd and yet another afd and a MFD. User:Gerbelzodude99's 19th contrib was an afd, and has made limited contribs to the mainspace for being a new user. All have been involved in afds concerning Joachim Cronman  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  TheWeak Willed   (T * G)
 * I reported the wrong user as the sockmaster, User:Drawn Some would be the sockmaster.


 * Comments by accused parties   See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Most of their contributions appear to be nominating articles that I start. And of course, all three accounts have nominated the same article: Joachim Cronman
 * User:Torkmann
 * Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Richard H. Sylvester
 * Articles for deletion/W. L. Shurtleff
 * Articles for deletion/Hiram Boardman Conibear
 * Articles for deletion/Suffrage Hike. He wrote: "How is this notable or memorable? I say that is it no different than any of the other myriad women's rights caterwauling that's been going on for the last several hundred years. No different than an article on 'Molly's bra burning at the Bush second inauguration party, 2004, Salem, Mass.' Sourcing seems a bit suspect as well. Rubbish."
 * User:Drawn Some
 * Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Henry Clay Ide
 * Articles for deletion/Margaret Frances Andrews
 * Articles for deletion/Cynthia Roche
 * Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind
 * User:Gerbelzodude99
 * Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (4th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston
 * Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery
 * Articles for deletion/Mary Ellis (spinster)
 * Articles for deletion/Eversharp. See here where he says "I have a feeling the author of this (and other New York Times-based articles) sits in a room full of century-old pulp newspapers and sketches out stub articles based on the contents thereof. I don't know if this is politically correct, but perhaps the author of these stubs suffers from autism or Asperger syndrome?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)


 * Checkuser is not for fishing. Jack Merridew 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And no one is fishing. The rules call for investigations of disruptive editing and for users avoiding potential sanctions, and users voting at same AFD under multiple accounts. Given the following ANIs filed against him its appears he is trying to avoid sanctions for his disruptions:


 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563,
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive198. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Fishing" means there is no idea who the person might be a sock of, but one merely sees some behavior that leads one to conclude there might be someone out there. When the particular suspected users are identified, as they are here, it isn't fishing. Personally, though, I think the evidence is sufficient to block without checkuser.  DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with RAN58 and DGG, this request is not fishing, it was justified by the evidence presented. ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * the 'unsigned' section was not present when I made my comment; and I've not looked at it, either. Off to eat. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Q.: We have two socks blocked but not Drawn Some; I see a problem with this being filed under an unconvicted user name and believe it needs to be moved to one of the blocked IDs. Or Drawn Some gets dinged, too. There's currently a 'suspicion' on his user page and he's not editing (at least not with that account). Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested by  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Comment. I am not sure where to add this, but here we go. I have no idea what any of you are talking about. I have no idea who this Gerbelzo guy is, but I will admit to familiarity with Drawn Some, as I know he had nominated the Cronman article for deletion in September. Feel free to check the IP, I have nothing to hide. Torkmann (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I will say right now that User:Drawn Some is for CheckUser purposes, so we won't be able to check on that. –MuZemike 20:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

I did some digging into contribs. Torkman and Gerbelzodude99 both participated (and voted delete) on the same article AfD Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery. Given the interest similarity and other factors, there's enough to warrant a check. First MuZe is right... Next I consider it highly, almost ✅, that
 * - - so no way to check the connection.

Note: See also this archived version of a previous report relating to Gerbelzodude99... I can't find it in the archive here, I thint it went missing. - Can a clerk investigate and correct the archiving or link or something so it can be found again? Thanks!

Block on behavior. Advise of questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up the mess with the archive. Have to run off and do something else, so could someone else take a look at the behavioral evidence and see if it is enough to mark Drawn Some as the sockmaster in this case? NW ( Talk ) 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking over the behavioral evidence, I don't think there is enough to implicate Drawn Some. It certainly seems possible, and even likely, but I am not comfortable blocking based on just my suspicion (though of course any administrator is free to do so). I have, however, indefinitely blocked both Torkmann and Gerbelzodude99. NW ( Talk ) 01:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I got an offline private request to look into

Ran a quick check and it is ✅ that AWD == AND and also sleepers Both now blocked and tagged as Torkmann socks as is AWD.

NOTE: this pivot raises to ✅, that

++Lar: t/c 07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)