Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gigs/Archive

Evidence submitted by Hellno2
User:Gigs recently proposed Work aversion for deletion. The discussion was closed last week overwhelmingly as keep (see Articles for deletion/Work aversion disorder (2nd nomination)). This week, it was proposed for deletion again, with an account called User:Poorfriendme (see Articles for deletion/Work aversion (3rd nomination) and Poorfriendme's contributions). User:Poorfriendme appears to be a single-purpose account that has served just one purpose: trying to get Work Aversion deleted.

User:Gigs is the only user who is obsessively trying to get this article deleted so far, not only making his own comments, but also rebutting all the other keeps. All the other comments (whether keep or delete) have just been "fly-by" comments, where they leave a message and then forget all about it. Hellno2 (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. I suspect that User:Poorfriendme is User:69.86.106.167, who had left comments on the talk page of Work aversion expressing concerns similar to those in the AfD nomination shortly before he nominated it for deletion. As IP users can't file AfDs, he probably created that account so that he could file the AfD.

The article is completely synthesis and original research, so it's not surprising that many random readers will want to nominate it for deletion. Many other users have expressed concerns over the article, on the talk page and at AfD.

Poorfriendme was apparently acting in good faith, and the AfD should remain open. Given that he is acting according to community norms in trying to get this pile of synthesis deleted, he's obviously not a disruptive SPA and should not be blocked. If anything he should be commended for trying to improve Wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
This seems pretty flimsy reasoning for an accusation of sockpuppetry. Do you really think Gigs cares enough about this one article to create a sock just to AFD it again? He seems to have said in at least one place he'll give you time to fix it.

Also, we're all SPA's when we first start out. If someone editing via IP wants to nominate an article for deletion, they have no choice but to create an account to do so.

Suggest declining this SPI if this is all it's based on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this is true, as it would be totally out of character. Gigs appears happy to give editors some time to fix the article, so I can't see why he would create a sockpuppet to prevent this from happening. A new user doing an AfD in his/her first few contributions in unusual but not unheard of, and certainly not enough to base a sockpuppet allegation on. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the first AfD, almost a year ago, it was apparently me who was "venting the anger" by trying to "get something deleted at all costs". Now it's the nominator of the third discussion who's a SPA and an established user with no visible history of vandalism is an obsessed COI. If there is someone who needs to be questioned here, it's User:Hellno2 and his blatant disregard for WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Have it ever occurred to User:Hellno2 that some people simply don't find the article in question that encyclopedic? — Rankiri (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just note that I was acting on a tip that someone else left on the afd. I really don't have actual evidence myself. But I do have evidence that Gigs desperately wants this article deleted. He even rants about it on his homepage here. It sounds to me more like dislike of the article. He is not even giving people a chance to fix it. Hellno2 (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, you should be a bit more careful in your accusations. WP:NPA specifically says that serious accusations about personal behavior that lack significant evidence are considered personal attacks. — Rankiri (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would decline this SPI based on the very little evidence given that Gigs is a sockpuppeteer. More than one person can AFD a page, and even if the account is new, it doesn't have to be controlled by someone who is also using another account. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I will note, because IPs cannot create pages, that it is acceptable and in good faith for autoconfirmed users to submit AFDs for IPs if said IP so desires. (Besides, IPs are more than allowed to PROD or tag an article for speedy deletion if the article warrants such.) –MuZemike 21:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is insufficient evidence to justify a check, let alone a block without one, on Gigs; on the other hand, this is extremely unlikely to be a new user, but it could be the IP Gigs suggested. On the balance, I'm seeing insufficient evidence of sockpuppetry to justify further investigation at this stage. Tim Song (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)