Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fantasy Game Productions/Archive

23 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Computing&diff=508762372&oldid=508760803 : "User:Fantasy Game Productions is, as of the last revision before deletion, largely identical to the current revision of User:Matthew Anthony Smith (save for a large amount of additional content regarding his game). Furthermore, Matthew Anthony Smith's page plainly states that he is the owner of "Fantasy Game Productions Inc". The account was created one month after FGP was blocked." Guy Macon (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

As the author of the comment Guy uses as evidence above, note that I has previously stated "Nevertheless, it's a bit late in the day for sanctions relating to a three-year-old block". The user has been editing without disruption under his current account for the last three years. I don't think this SPI really needed to be filed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I am not a big fan of accusing someone of being a sockpuppet on a talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Based upon this wise comment, if sockpuppetry is found, I suggest a friendly explanation of why we frown on that rather than anything harsher. And if sockpuppetry is not found, I suggest a friendly explanation of why it might not be such a good idea to accuse someone of being a sock other than at SPI. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * All of that could have been done quietly had you not first loudly demanded evidence and then come to SPI with what you were given when evidently those editors who were able to identify it from the obvious evidence (both experienced admins) had chosen not to. This hasn't helped the situation for anyone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Hmm. It's certainly established that both accounts belong to the same person. As I understand it, the original account was blocked for a bit of disruption on its user page (edit warring, possibly promoting a game) in combination with the account name. It seems nobody really talked to him about any of this prior to the block. I assume that if had he stopped those edits on the user page and asked for a rename then an unblock would have been granted immediately and without reservations. Strictly speaking he was evading his block. Sanctions are used only to improve Wikipedia though. Sanctioning the block evasion now, three and a half years later with (as was said) no further disruptions, would not achieve that. Matthew was pointed towards this page so I am sure he knows by now that he didn't exactly follow community norms and expectations here, and will hopefully use the accepted methods if a similar situations ever comes up again. Closing this then, and I hope this allows everyone to focus on the content, not the editor. Amalthea  09:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)