Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ks64q2/Archive

Report date March 20 2009, 09:12 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Fram (talk)

User:Ks64q2 is a regular editor who has run into some trouble lately (not saying that the trouble is his fault), including a 3RR block, more 3RR warnings, a WP:WQA section and disputes about blogs and sources. He has now created the account User:Ks64q3, which is not a problem thus far.

However, the problems start with User:Snarktastic, who is in my opinion either an unacceptable sockpuppet of Ks64q2, or a sockpuppet of another user created to make Ks64q2 look bad. First, the name: Ks64q2 claims on his userpage that "My areas of particular interest are Nursing, Politics, Political Blogs, Snark". (my emphasis) Second, the very first edit by Snarktastic is this, on a page about a political blog (another interest of Ks64q2), and not the kind of edits most newbies make (assessing a page for a project).

The other edits by Snarktastic are also all about blogging or nursing, so both the editor's name and his interests are remarkably similar to those of Ks64q2. His editing time is also quite similar, with Snarktastic created March 19th at 3:10, Ks64q2 editing on March 19th at 03:18, Snarktastic editing between 03:20 and 03:32, Ks64q2 again editing between 03:35 and 04:14, Snarktastic editing between 04:40 and 04:53, and Ks64q2 again resuming his editing at 04:55. All this points to them being the same editor, but contains no unacceptable behaviour so far.

However, ks64q2 was blocked for 3RR violations between 18 March 15:04 and 19 March 03:04, which means that his block expired six minutes before Snarktastic was created. On the article University of Virginia School of Nursing, I removed on March 18 a blog source added by Ks64q2.. Snarktastic added the same blog (hosted on a different blog site, but the exact same text and author) the next day.

On Remote Area Medical, it's even worse: I reverted the blog source added by Ks64q2, Snarktastic readded the same text (again from the different blog site), I reverted Snarktastic, and the Ks64q2 readded the same source as Snarktastic (not his original site, but the snarktastic site).

The bahaviour points to either someone trying to imitate ks64q2 (to be able to accuse him of sockpuppetry, I presume), or ks64q2 using the sock to avoid further 3RR problems and to avoid closer scrutiny (the reason he created ks64q3). Judging from the editing times, it looks quite certain to me that Snarktastic is a sock of ks64q2 used to edit war, but as I have been involved in discussions with Ks64q2, my judgment may be clouded. Fram (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to Ks64q2: You now claim "I freely admit that "Snarktastic" is me" but that "I only see now that user "Bali ultimate" had asked me in one of the talk forums if I was that user. "? When asked if you were Snarktastic earlier, you patronized us with a ":Tsk, tsk, tsk, gentlemen! WP:AGF, please!", which was clearly in reference to the question about Snarktastic, since you continued with "Oh, and Fram, you might want to check the edit made on the "Nursing" page, as well, as that link was similarly well sourced.", which was a reference to an article never edited by ks64q2 or by me but edited earlier that day by Snarktastic and reverted by Bali Ultimate. So you had obviously read the suspicions by Bali, but instead of admitting it, you told us to assume good faith, and then happened to ignore the followup by Bali less than twenty minutes later? I think you just lost your last chance for that... Fram (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply Fram, you are mistaken here on the intent of that snarky comment; though I see, hunting down the reference, how it could be inferred the way you did. My apologies; I'll freely own up to that mistake. Though the comment on the Nursing article certainly demonstrates I never had any intent to hide my actions, and came after I discussed it with another admin. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

No, I freely admit that "Snarktastic" is me, as well as "Ks64q3", which I noted obviously in the forum I used that in, in order to get a free and clear answer to that question- which I did, and have no intention of using both accounts. Now, taking a look at the logs, you'll see Snarktastic/I only edited those links once- with a good faith attempt at adding a source that is acceptable for countless other Wikipedia pages. The biggest problem I can see here is undoing Fram's edit as me- which, when it was questioned, I immediately set out to clarify and get consensus on the right course of action- leading to the Ks64q3 account, and the subsequent questioning using it. Once the potential problems with this was pointed out, however, I immediately stopped- which you can see by the logs. It was my original intent to leave this account behind and move to one that was less acrimonius- is that a word? Anyway, another administrator I had contacted about doing so had pointed out the problems that may occur to me- namely, this state of affairs right here- and so I immediately stopped. I'd be happy to forward a member of the arbitration committee or whomever judges these things that correspondence. Obviously, I didn't use my current account in tandem with "Snarktastic", and I didn't hide my IP address or make any other attempt at deception; obviously, any such attempt would be counterproductive at best- I only see now that user "Bali ultimate" had asked me in one of the talk forums if I was that user. Given his recent behavior toward me, I haven't been paying enough attention to notes like that, as they've been, without a fault, very hostile to me- even when I have tried to make a bona fide effort to "bury the hatchet", so to speak, and offer to work together towards a common goal on a page we were both improving. He and another user are under a WP:ANI for that behavior right now- both have shown up in the thread below, and I noticed this violation was reported to administrator "Fram" only after administrators began to question their behavior- but I digress. In any case, after contact from the other admin (actually, two three, although two were only obliquely related to this), I immediately implemented their advice and moved on, armed with that information helping enable me to become a better Wikipedia editor. Even with all of this animosity flying around, I've made it a point to visit the backlog every day and work on something from it, as well as finding new and unique and diverse information/articles to help improve.

As to administrator "Fram", I think he was acting in good faith reporting this. He and I certainly have some animosity- or, at least, he appears to have it towards me- but look at his editing history, how many pages he's created, etc- and you can see he works tirelessly for the better of this site. Indeed, it was my intent to It does feel like, however, that several accusations against me have been made in quick succession- and when they've been resolved in my favor, another comes along. Perhaps that is a personal perception. But if you take a look at the logs of my contributions to Wikipedia, as well as the particulars Fram has provided, I will happily stand behind them. I have nothing to hide, no desire to engage in "edit wars"; they do not benefit me in any way, instead requiring me to spend long hours giving expositions such as this one. I acted in what I believed were acceptable guidelines for editing here on Wikipedia via the policies on WP:RS, WP:Multiple Accounts, etc, and when pointed out I erred, have immediately accepted that advice- if sometimes verifying it- and have moved on. I would suggest that, at worst, this is a case of WP:Harlon's Razor; or, perhaps, a case of WP:AGF not being taken into consideration; which I believe is key for building a dialogue to work with other editors. This is Wikipedia, after all. I know the recent AfD forum we participated in got heated past a point I've seen few flame wars reach- and it certainly wasn't worth all of this animosity, accusations flying back and forth, etc, or to take our time and attention away from actual problems existing on Wikipedia.

In any case, I'll gladly stand behind my actions, and if you truly believe further action than was already taken is needed to correct my behavior, I'll proudly accept it and stand behind it. Let no one say I will not admit my shortcomings, or faults and mistakes.

Thank you! Ks64q2 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see the comments below now, too. No, none of those are me, feel free to IP check them. Ks64q2 (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There are three other accounts and one IP that fit the same profile. All could conceivably be innocent users, except that they appear, edit to support the positions or interests of this user, and then disappear without a trace. I have to agree with Fram on two counts. (a) The pattern is so obvious that it could easily be a frame-up. (b) I'm anything but unbiased; I stopped AGF in this case some time ago, after too much evidence of COI, deception and disruption.
 * Comments by other users


 * First edit on 18 March links to the now-delete Motley Moose page (dif)
 * First edit on 18 March related to the same material on the same page (dif). Fourth edit is a !keep on the Motley Moose AfD (dif)
 * Joins a the blog wikiproject, makes two inconsequential edits, then votes !keep in the Motley Moose AfD (dif)
 * Twice edits a page created by Ks64q2 shortly before, then votes !keep on the Motley Moose AfD (diff)
 * Joins a the blog wikiproject, makes two inconsequential edits, then votes !keep in the Motley Moose AfD (dif)
 * Twice edits a page created by Ks64q2 shortly before, then votes !keep on the Motley Moose AfD (diff)
 * Twice edits a page created by Ks64q2 shortly before, then votes !keep on the Motley Moose AfD (diff)
 * Twice edits a page created by Ks64q2 shortly before, then votes !keep on the Motley Moose AfD (diff)

Additionally, there are two just-about declared IPs that haven't been improperly used:

And there is one account with a somewhat troubling overlap of editing histories and interests, which is probably just a related party: Activity seems to have stopped on all those accounts. But now that a report is open, it may as well be complete. 9Nak (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As an involved editor, maybe I shouldn't have, but as Mayalld notes below, it's a pretty clear violation of policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked him about snarktastic and the declared sock here a few hours before  this report was filed and about his connection to snarktastic here  (about a day and a half ago). No response was received in either case. I asked him about IP 68.201.84.95 a few days ago. After he said "it's not me, but I'm pretty sure I know who it is" he went on to say "it's a passing aquaintence of mine who I asked to edit the FMC article." This dialogue can be found at the very top of my talk page under "Ip addy question."Bali ultimate (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a couple of run-ins with this user, and I'm suspicious of socks as well. Here are some additional IP's I've noticed to have very similar editting histories and that seem to support Ks64q2's positions.--Sloane (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (this one made an edit while Ks64q2 was under a 12h block due to 3rr violation)

Clearly a breach of WP:SOCK has occured. However, to his credit the user has been honest about this. The user didn't believe that he was doing wrong, but has accepted that he was. On the strength of his assurances that there will be no repeat, no action is required at this stage. Mayalld (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * behavioural evidence seems to point to Snarktastic being the same user. Additionally, Ks64q3 was used whilst the user was still editing as Ks64q2, which is also a breach of WP:SOCK. Mayalld (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am speaking to the user. Mayalld (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions