Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelphin/Archive

12 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Duck accounts, where the editor has left humour territory and crossed over to the dark side.  The quacking is of such volume looking at the contributions that a Checkuser is indicated and requested. Penyulap  ☏  14:06, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC) 14:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to withdraw this request for CU and SPI. not sure how to do that yet, I've come across a diff that gives me cause for reasonable doubt. Penyulap  ☏  14:59, 12 Jul 2012 (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

 * WIthdrawn at the request of the reporting party. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

12 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (placeholder) main (old) account, spaceflight editor
 * (placeholder) main (old) account, spaceflight editor
 * (placeholder) main (old) account, spaceflight editor
 * (placeholder) main (old) account, spaceflight editor


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The long time spaceflight editor behind these accounts has gone from harassment (fixation shows in almost all edits/userpages/even his sig) to grooming an admin   for favour  and illusion of support Looking at the contributions already listed and this sort of thing a Checkuser is indicated and requested. I have a dataset which would easily establish the link to other accounts without CU, however I don't wish to educate people who like to do this sort of thing. But it's there if needed. I haven't asked for a CU or reported a sock before, so I'm not sure of the correct balance between providing enough actionable evidence, and avoiding educating and improving the socking editors future ability. So if you let me know when you have just enough, or don't have enough yet, that would be cool.
 * I would definitely like this to go ahead as originally requested, sorry for my initial doubts. Penyulap  ☏  11:31, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * I asked the editor on his talkpage if he would like to name his older account, he responded on my talkpage without doing so. Penyulap  ☏  13:32, 16 Jul 2012 (UTC)

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

I am currently engaged, along with a number of other editors including the user who is the subject of this SPI, in a dispute with Penyulap, so I really don't want to get involved in this case, however I can't let this pass without comment. In its current form, this complaint contains no accusations, let alone evidence, or abusive use of sockpuppetry - merely that Kelphin/Mir has multiple accounts. The user accused has made no attempt to use these accounts disruptively or hide the nature of his accounts; Monreal is clearly marked as a doppleganger account and has never edited, Kelphin has not edited since Mir was registered, and Mir stated that he registered a new account as he had lost the password. I can't see how "grooming an admin" translates into abusing multiple accounts, and in any case all the diffs show is him completing an admin review (which wasn't even that complimentary), and then asking the same administrator (presumably because he is familiar with him) for help in dealing with another editor who he sees as disruptive - interestingly the same editor who has now accused him of sockpuppetry. -- W.  D.   Graham  11:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I,being mir almaat 1 S1, say that I just put up a choice to suggest a solution to the ongoing discussion against Penyulap. POISK-300 is my alternative account. Mir Almaat 1 S2 and Monereal are my doppelgangers. Monareal is the former name of the account I'm using now and I only have 1 disruptive edit warning,1 warning of low-level vandilism and 1 false accusation in one sockpuppet investigation. WD had a mistake i.e Kelphin is inacsessable, not password lost.Unpresidented welcome to almaat chat   05:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Responding to your TalkBack template, I'd like to ask, how long have you been editing wikipedia for ? Penyulap  ☏  05:28, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * Since 2010(Kelphin) 2012(Monareal).Unpresidented welcome to almaat chat   05:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you forgotten the infobox?Unpresidented welcome to almaat chat   05:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, can you tell me why you talk to me so very much ? Penyulap  ☏  05:56, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * I want you to
 * a.) Stop your Disruptive editing
 * b.) Resume work on the infobox
 * c.) And stop this investigation because this accusation is like a revenge accusation against the my comments at WP:SPACEFLIGHT, WormTT's and WDGraham's talkpage.Unpresidented welcome to almaat chat   06:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A large number of the edits you have made appear to be asking me for assistance, can you tell me why ? Penyulap  ☏  06:25, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * this contains the our first chat for making the infobox.Unpresidented welcome to almaat chat   06:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You have given me barnstars twice, can you explain why ? Penyulap  ☏  06:38, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * You were editing normally and appreciatingly at that time, that's why. And please follow these
 * a.) Stop your Disruptive editing
 * b.) Resume work on the infobox
 * c.) And stop this investigation because this accusation is like a revenge accusation against the my comments at WP:SPACEFLIGHT, WormTT's and WDGraham's talkpageUnpresidented welcome to almaat chat   06:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What? Can't I give him gifts on his 0.3rd birthday?Unpresidented welcome to almaat chat   07:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have given gifts and an award to my bot, PALZ9000 could you explain why ? Penyulap  ☏  07:09, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * You have taken an interest in rating an administrator, why is that ? Penyulap  ☏  07:18, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Why? Everybody has the right to comment on an admin on his/her admin review. He is my favourite admin and teahouse host, so i decided to tell something about dave.Unpresidented welcome to almaat chat   07:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I was being "groomed" by an editor who told me that I was the 501st admin out of 700? I wish someone had told me, does that mean he was "bigging me up" and I'm actually lower than 501? In any case, I knew Monareal from his many questions at the Teahouse, and spotted him change his name per this request in April. It appears he recreated Monareal as a doppelganger, which redirects to his current username. I don't see an issue with that at all. Kelphin, I was unaware of, but doesn't appear to have edited since January 2012, completely seperate from the other two accounts (though Kelphin has received a number of barnstars from Mir). I'd advise we all just quietly move on with our lives. I'm going to give similar advice on my talk page, where this was brought up.  Worm TT( talk ) 07:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that these accounts are not sock-puppets of another older account ? Penyulap  ☏  08:04, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the term "Sock puppet" specifically refers to abusive use of alternative accounts, and I'm not seeing the abuse - yes, that's what I'm saying.  Worm TT( talk ) 08:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have enjoyed editing policy pages in the past, however, looking at the Harassment policy page I'm thinking nothing needs clarification there, so am I wrong to think that this sock's primary purpose is harassment ? Penyulap  ☏  08:28, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not sure if SPI is the best place to discuss that, so I'll drop you a line on your talk page.  Worm TT( talk ) 08:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if I need assistance that I can find someone competent to ask. Penyulap  ☏  08:39, 19 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand - why do you want an "investigation" to establish that some admitted socks, apparently socks within policy at that, are in fact socks? Seems a waste of time to me. Egg  Centri  c  00:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only a waste of time if WP:HA is insufficiently clear. The difference between the sole purpose from the start of the account, and my response to that harassment is key, they are independent of each other. HA is HA even if it fails to raise a response, even now, when it disturbs other editors, I still do not care at all, in fact I like the idea that the editor yet unnamed has given me two awards as part of his harassment campaign, thanks man. Penyulap  ☏  02:12, 20 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Withdrawn at the request of the reporting party. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No evidence of alternate account abuse. Time to move on. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)