Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johanricher/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User:Johanricher has only made one contribution to Wikipedia consisting of four edits: This contribution adds one sentence to an RFC. User:Eraviart has made only one contribution, consisting of one edit only within two minutes of Johanricher:. His contribution adds a word for word duplicate of Johanricher's sentence to the same RFC. And his account is created on the same date. None of these two have any other contributions, making them single-purpose accounts. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Both Johann Richer and Emmanuel Raviart are working in the same office and share a common interest in software and wikidata. They attended the wikiconvention last month in Paris and work for the French government at https://etalab.gouv.fr/. They got interested in the poll regarding the source repository in the software infobox and created their account to support the idea. My guess is that they did the research on how to properly support that together, reason why they came up with an almost identical rationale. In any case, opening the case and closing it within 24h is a little hasty :-) Should you need more information to be convinced they are real individuals with the best interest of wikipedia at heart, I suggest you just send them a message via the usual channel and give them a chance to respond. Dachary (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Their posts are not almost identical, they are identical. Anyway, even if what you're saying is true, that means that they are engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETRY which is equally wrong. Meatpuppeting in the AfD is very disruptive behavior and they still need to be blocked.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please assume Johann Richer and Emmanuel Raviart acted in good faith and revert your decision. Dachary (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also find this block not a fair assessment of the situation. Is there a rule against making your first edits in a discussion? Some people might only contribute to such discussions, that doesn't mean they are not giving valuable input. And we are not removing comments from IP addresses. So by this logic you are worse off, as a sporadic editor, while logged in. I don't think that is what anyone wants. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no rule against posting in a discussion. They are not blocked for discussing, they are blocked for WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT. Using logged-out IP editing to !vote twice is equally wrong per WP:SOCK and such comments are, of course, removed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said in the comment above and as can be verified independently, both editors have a genuine interest in the topic at hand, they have not been recruited (your mention of WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT suggest you think they have been recruited for the sole purpose of influencing a vote). I do not understand why this decision is enforced despite clear evidence that everyone involved acted in good faith and within the best interest of wikipedia. Punishing new editors for a technicality, even after an honest effort was made to explain the specifics of the situation is unnecessary. Dachary (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone in the list who voted twice. Are those edits already hidden? --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not say anyone of them voted twice. I was responding to you comment ("And we are not removing comments from IP addresses").  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess then I really don't understand what the evidence is that one is a sockpuppet of the other. Can you explain what the evidence is, as I have never before participated in such a dicussion. It seems to me just as likely that they just sat next to each other, had the same opinion and voted citing the same rules. I don't see any huge problem here, especially given that the thing they voted on, has zero importance (Why would anyone in the world try to cheat on a poll to add a link to an infobox?). --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you even know these two accounts belong to Johann Richer and Emmanuel Raviart? Anyone can create an account called User:Bill Gates, User:Richard Stallman and User:Obama.


 * As you say Johann Richer and Emmanuel Raviart are distinguished editors but the sentence User:Jricher wrote was patent nonsense: WP:ELOFFICIAL does not override WP:EL; it is part of it.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I read the Please do not bite the newcomers which I quote here to illustrate that this kind of questioning and suspicion is out of line: '''Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet." You can point them to those policies if there is valid cause to do so. For example, if a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade).'''. Although I'm confident that a full scale investigation will demonstrate that both Johann Richer and Emmanuel Raviart are newcomers that should be treated with respect, it wouldn't be right to start such an investigation. The support and information provided here should be more than enough to assume good faith and revert the decision. Dachary (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Sock indeffed, master blocked for a week. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)