Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor940/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

"Editor940," who has a recent history of disruptive editing, nominated Jay Cutler for GA. New account "81ImInnocent" began reviewing it moments after its nomination and is currently working on the review page.  Cryptic   Canadian  04:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * Mischaracterizing across the board. I have NO history of disruptive editing; It was one admin's opinion that I was disruptive editing, but you do understand the difference between opinion and fact don't you? Just because I may think sour cream is good doesn't mean it is true.Editor940 (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Throwing this counter-evidence in here for posterity:    Cryptic   Canadian  05:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as accounts are concerned, I didn't know it was not allowed. I won't do it again. Please don't block me. Editor940 (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I am honest, yes I did, I won't do it again, didn't realize the technicality existed, please don't block me I just got done serving a 31 hour block for a bogus disruptive editing accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * are you admitting that you created a sock puppet to review your own GA nomination? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, honesty has to count for something. I'll block the sock puppet and leave you unblocked.  But don't do that again, please.  In fact, I strongly suggest you don't create any more accounts.  I don't think you understand WP:LEGITSOCK well enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is the first account (later User:81ImInnocent) to review Editor940's own GA nomination, and clearly mimicking my username. Blocked based on behavior, requesting a CU for additional sleeper accounts.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  14:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all there is no rule on Wikipedia blocking users from creating an account that is a similar style to one they may see, so mentioning that further proves how baseless this puppetry case is. You gotta have more evidence than that, don't do? Do you?

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' This was an unnecessary opening of a case and I am going to fight this one agressively, unlike the User:81Iminnocent.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅, . Leaving open for a second opinion on the master, who commented above but failed to disclose this account. ST47 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's becoming tedious for other editors to clean up after Editor940, and I'm having trouble assuming good faith about this stuff now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you have to "clean up," there was one sock puppet account, 81iminnocent, which we dealt with. Patriots247 was my legal alternate account- if Eagles247 himself can have an alternate account and advertise it on his main account's user page, than so can I. All Wikipedians were created equal.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Global_rights Editor940 (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't disclose it on your main account's user page, and you did use it to defraud the GA process, in violation of WP:BADSOCK. ST47 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disclose it because I was blocked by Eagles247, the same guy who goes around following every edit I make and undoing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)
 * Either you were blocked, and therefore evading a block when you created the new accounts, or you were unblocked, and you were able to edit your userpage when you created the new accounts. Which one was it? ST47 (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I had created the account before I was blocked, and when I was blocked I saw Eagles247 has his alternates listed on his user page which gave me the idea, but at that point there wasn't anything I could do because I was blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)


 * Since Editor940 clearly doesn't understand the relevant policies - and is defending the use of alternate accounts to support his own GA nomination - I've blocked them. An unblock request, and not an argument in the "clerk, CU, and admin comments" section of an SPI, is the correct mechanism for them to demonstrate their understanding. Closing this case. ST47 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)