Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Journeey/Archive

Report date March 23 2009, 03:22 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

All SPAs saying "keep" in an AfD, and both Journeey and the IP have made personal attacks against one editor, User:Jump Guru, claiming he knows the person and is saying delete out of a "schoolyard" tiff. Would say Journeey and the IP are very clear from the AfD, but would like to make sure he isn't using the other SPA to make multiple keeps and that this isn't some other editor taking a personal dispute to a low level. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs)


 * Added User:Editname which is possibly the first of the accounts, though has not participated in the Afed. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * I fully support Collectonian's desire to have this matter investigated, if only to stop it from dragging out the AfD (for the record, I'm a keeper in that discussion). The IP, Journeey, and TypeEdit sound eerily similar, and they seem to try to muddy the waters in the same way. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All of them except Editname have attacked me. Editname and TypeEdit, both editing the same subject are abviously socks. It seems as though he was trying to make separate accounts to largen the ammounts of "keep". I support. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 00:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested by -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC) As Nixeagle has already hinted, code C doesn't generally apply whilst the AFD is still open. Code C requires the outcome to have been affected. Looking at the AFD, I can see no possible way that the outcome could be affected. Even if we discount the !votes from these users, there is a clear consensus to keep the article. Mayalld (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * We will need to wait for the AFD to close before a checkuser will look. ——  nix eagle email me 03:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Even though they are also using the accounts to attack another editor? :( -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can have the accounts blocked/warned for attacks. I do doubt that a checkuser will investigate until after the AFD closes. ——  nix eagle email me 04:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. Its standard to wait until an AfDs outcome has been or is likely to have been, affected.  Syn  ergy 12:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of the AFD was, in any case unaffected. Considering the alleged socks; No evidence was submitted in respect of Editname, and I see nothing to suggest a connection. The IP clearly is the alleged master, but I think we will resist the temptation to WP:BITE a newbie if he forgets to log in once. That just leaves TypeEdit. His conduct at the AFD was disruptive, as was the alleged master to an extent, but the behaviour of the two was very different. Mayalld (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions