Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KVDP/Archive

21 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

IPsocking, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of KVDP

This isn't the usual SPI, as it's more about a behaviour pattern than simply proving sockery.

is an enthusiastic contributor of simple drawings on engineering topics, usually on the broad topic of "appropriate technology". These drawings are uploaded to Commons. I've noticed them since around 2009. There is a problem – they fail WP:COMPETENCE. These drawings are almost universally technically misunderstood, such that they are rapidly deleted from Commons. See Commons:User talk:KVDP for just some of the deletion notes. Note that this is deletion from Commons, where there is no constraint on WP:OR, so things have to be really pretty bad before they're deleted, way below the standards at WP.

These images keep coming. They don't improve. I, and other editors, have wasted pages of discussion trying to sort out their technical issues. I have given up on this: this editor is not capable of understanding the problem or learning enough to make competent images, even of simple machines or by copying from other accurate drawings (and believe me, I've tried). Yet the drawings keep coming.

The socking aspect is that these images are uploaded to Commons under the KVDP account, but that they're then added to WP articles under an anon IP. More recently (after complaints) they've taken to adding them to article talk pages instead  and suggesting that they should be added (the response is not generally in favour).

I see this logged in/logged out behaviour as against our socking policy, as it's an attempt to mislead other editors about the bona fides and the connection of the person suggesting an image and the image author. It's also far too common and frequent to be an innocent accidental logout. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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

KVDP (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit I often edit as an anonymous user. I do this as I don't want to have any minor edits I do at wikipedia/wikimedia commons appear on my user history. That way, if I search for something I did a while back, there are no minor edits listed. Andy makes it sound like there is some "malicious intent" from my behalf which is untrue. In addition I assumed that "Sockpuppetry" related to a user having several wiki accounts, which I don't have (I just also edit as an anonymous user, under my IP -which can btw be traced back to me so I can still be monitored even when I am not logged in). I hence fail to see the problem here.


 * I said misleading, not malicious. I don't know or care why you're doing this, merely that you're doing it in a way that misleads other editors into believing that your advocacy of an image is independent, rather than involved as the author. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I don't think any action is required here, this time. I've left a note on the editor's page advising him to edit solely from his named account; further editing as an IP may be construed as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Wider questions about the editing practices described here should be raised at WP:AN/I or WP:RfC/U. Closing. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

10 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Opening at another CheckUser's request. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This is disappointing. I saw this (KVDP's page are on my watchlist as we have old history) and came here to refute the ridiculous allegation that he'd sock, or sock as "Redneck Rick" in a US guns article. Yet the editing style is so very close to that of KVDP, as soon as I read the edits I was convinced, even without CU. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I have pulled autopatroled from KVDP as it is expected that if your inserting articles into wiki in big numbers, your not going to be harming it/violating policies. Any admin feeling that he has proven the trust required again can restore it down the road. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have pulled autopatroled from KVDP as it is expected that if your inserting articles into wiki in big numbers, your not going to be harming it/violating policies. Any admin feeling that he has proven the trust required again can restore it down the road. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have pulled autopatroled from KVDP as it is expected that if your inserting articles into wiki in big numbers, your not going to be harming it/violating policies. Any admin feeling that he has proven the trust required again can restore it down the road. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have pulled autopatroled from KVDP as it is expected that if your inserting articles into wiki in big numbers, your not going to be harming it/violating policies. Any admin feeling that he has proven the trust required again can restore it down the road. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have pulled autopatroled from KVDP as it is expected that if your inserting articles into wiki in big numbers, your not going to be harming it/violating policies. Any admin feeling that he has proven the trust required again can restore it down the road. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Master blocked for a month. Socks indeffed. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)