Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jpate0200/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Continued work in animal-related articles, curiously removes sockmaster tag in Jpate0200's userpage, and also listed their name as "Joshua Pate" in their userpage which is also curiously similar to Jpate0200's username  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 05:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Another curious thing here is the aforementoned tag removal is only a few minutes before, a confirmed sockpuppet, blanked their talk page.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 05:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
 
 * Yep, and editing the same article: . Very obvious. - please indef the sock. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I fear we may have gone off the deep end on this one. Looking at Jpate0200's editing history, I see somebody who was making constructive edits to zoology-related topics and then took a short foray into a series of hoax edits about the imaginary country of Leosville.  At that point,  indef blocked them a a VOA, which I think was rather harsh for a first offence.  They enquired about why they were blocked but got no response.  While there's no doubt that  and  are their socks, I'm not seeing anything in the edits of those accounts that are anything but valuable contributions to the encyclopedia.
 * I really think we missed an opportunity to correct a minor mistake with some education and encourage a new editor to keep generating good productive edits. IMHO, we would do better to unblock the original account, have a friendly but stern talk with them about hoaxes, and get them back to productive editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith: Is your comment intended as a decline of the action request? If not, I'm inclined to block. I know where you're coming from, but they have been evading their block for over a year, and I think an unblock should be contingent on an actual appeal – not just from a procedural perspective, but also because I do think that any unblock should be preceded by formal acknowledgement of why the socking and the original behaviour they got blocked for was wrong. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to answer that. They did ask to be unblocked here.  It wasn't using our preferred template, but the intent was clear.  We ignored their query, so they went ahead and did the only logical thing.  They created a new account, which they used to make productive contributions.  If you're asking, "Am I forbidding you to block?"  No, of course not.  I don't have the authority to do that.  But I do think it would not be in the best interests of the project. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith: I'm aware you can't forbid me to block; I just don't like taking actions that I know a fellow admin is going to overturn. I also disagree that the linked diff constitutes an unblock request, though I agree they should have gotten a reply; considering that they blanked the talk page with the block notice, we can safely assume that they saw the link to WP:GAB and ignored it. Even if we assume that the original block was overly harsh, I don't think it rises to a level where it would be justified to unilaterally overturn it without consulting the blocking admin after multiple instances of evasion. I am also concerned about the significant, self-admitted copyvio here and this recent A7 creation. They do seem to be here in good faith, but I don't think they should continue to edit without a serious conversation, and an unblock request strikes me as the right venue for that. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't have even used the word "forbid"; that's too strong a word, even if used in the negative, and set the wrong tone. I'm certainly not going to overturn you, and I doubt any other admin would either.  I'm just expressing my opinion, and you're free to do what you will with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * (nb. no further action from discussing admins for 4 days, actioning as requested.) ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 05:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)