Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krshwunk/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

BlazePhillips account was created when I started a discussion about an external link Krshwunk had added to Criticism of Atheism. BlazePhillips has only contributed to two pages External_links/Noticeboard and Talk:Criticism_of_atheism, and only on support of Krshwunk.


 * BlazePhillips's contruibutions
 * Krshwunk's contributions  Pepper Beast    (talk)  02:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

BlazePhillips is my brother. We currently are in a building with multiple networks, but whether we were on the same network during the relevant time period, I am unsure. We both share an interest in the topic of the Wikipedia article in question, namely, "Criticism of Atheism," and I composed a webpage detailing a list of "atheist murderers" with copious footnotes that I believed would be a useful resource for many people wanting further details on an aspect of the subject. When accusations came that the external link I provided was "inappropriate" and wrestled with understanding why, I asked my brother for his assistance on the matter, inviting him to the online discussion as I was sure he would enjoy it (as we enjoy debating with each other and with other people) and wishing to see what he would bring to the table. Incidentally, we shared very similar views on the matter (something which is certainly not always the case). When I asked him, I didn't know whether he had contributed to Wikipedia before or not, but as it turned out, he had not, and so he created an account for the first time. He became quite interested in the discussion and read up on Wikipedia's rules regarding external links, finding out, for example, that they did not necessarily need to be linked to a page written by a Wikipedia-defined reliable source, something that various other users in the talk had been mistaken on and something which both my brother and I proceeded to explain to them. Each of us came up with other defending points, often testing them against one another to see if they held up. I would say then, at the very least, that this was not sock puppetry, of course, as my brother and I are two different people. After reviewing Wikipedia's policies more closely in light of this accusation, however, I now presume some might try to argue that this was a form of "meat puppetry." I would say that my brother did bring his own ideas and intellect to the discussion which, in turn, actually contributed in forming my own responses as well (and, for what it's worth, he is more intelligent than me in many ways). I certainly did not intend to break any of Wikipedia's policies nor was I aware that I was even close to doing so. I would understand if we are to be considered a "single user" on this issue, but if it qualifies as something more serious, on account of me inviting my brother to the discussion, then I sincerely apologize for doing so. I apologize especially to PepperBeast. Krshwunk (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to doubt any of the above, but it's textbook meat puppetry. Regardless of whether he brought his own ideas and intellect, you canvassed him to act as a meat puppet (someone who joined because you asked, to support your argument). I suspect BlazePhillips will be blocked as an account that was created to push an agenda rather than to build an encyclopedia (see WP:NOTHERE), but as you were unaware of this rule and acknowledge it now I imagine the reviewing admins won't otherwise take action for this (although compounded with edit warring and adding links to your own website, who knows). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per above, I agree a sockpuppetry block for Krshwunk doesn't seem necessary, but BlazePhillips's account was created/recruited for the sole purpose of pushing a particular agenda (a COI agenda at that) (i.e. WP:NOTHERE). Is that outside the scope of SPI to address? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I accept, Kevin. Thank you. Krshwunk (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I am willing to close this case without action (without a sockpuppetry block) if you and your brother understand that you will be treated as the same user in any topic which you both edit (with respect to reverts under 3RR, sanctions, discussions, etc.). It might also be a good idea to describe the relationship on your userpages, e.g. with Template:User shared IP address. Do you accept? Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks,.
 * You're correct, that is outside the scope of SPI. I'd recommend AN(I) to resolve that one.
 * Closed without action. Thanks all. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)