Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klest001/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Andrj163 popped up immediately after Draft:United Shore Financial Services was Rejected, and submitted another draft on United Shore Financial Services containing much of the same material. Plagiarism is a possible explanation. Sockpuppetry is a more likely explanation based on the quacking. When the duck is chased away, the drake will show up. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Bradv This is clearly an attempt to game the system by resubmitting a Rejected title, presumably in the hope that the second reviewer would accept the sandbox directly into article space, bypassing the shell in draft space. It is true that the submitter could have used the same account for the second submission.  However, the fact that the submitter used two accounts shows that they were trying to dance around something,namely, to dance around the fact that the topic had been Rejected.  So to dance around something, it helps to conjure up a dancing partner.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2020 (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
 
 * obvious socks, not even worth CU, just block. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , what abuse of multiple accounts is being alleged here? – bradv  🍁  23:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Two different accounts trying to get the same article published via different routes. Draft:United Shore Financial Services by Klest001 and after that was rejected, User:Andrj163/sandbox. If not socks, then certainly meat. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's not a violation of policy though. They abandoned one account and created a new one. We encourage people with promotional usernames to do that all the time. – bradv  🍁  23:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm confused. How is Klest0001 a promotional username?  And, if they decided they didn't like their username, why come to that conclusion only after three submissions eventually resulted in the draft being rejected? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , that was an example. The point is that abandoning one account and switching to another is not by itself a violation of policy. Perhaps there's a case to block one or both for spamming, but a block for abuse of multiple accounts would be unjustified. – bradv  🍁  00:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that switching to another account is fine in general. But, WP:ILLEGIT says, "switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of this policy".  It sure seems to me that submitting the same draft that had been rejected in draft space from your newly-created account's userspace is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't see how a block would be justified here. Blocking would require that the conduct (due to socking) is so bad that a block is necessary to stop it. Even more so for an indef block which is the strongest sanction we can impose. Before imposing any sanction, it has to be clear that the people doing the thing are actually aware that they've done the wrong thing. I definitely can't see how that's the case here. All that's necessary is letting them know about our socking policy, such as with uw-agf-sock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Placed warnings on both user talk pages. Closing with no further action. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)