Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lslavin13/Archive

Report date July 8 2009, 13:56 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by JamesBWatson

Myselfthankyou and 98.165.109.150 have been commenting in an AfD discussion on an article created by Lslavin13. They are clearly attempting to look like two independent supporters of the article.

Lslavin13 created the article Wicked Wendsdays (sic), later moved to Wicked Wednesdays. The article was tagged for speedy deletion, Lslavin13 removed the tag, and Drmies restored it. Lslavin13 then vandalised Drmies's user page, in what looks like retaliation. After the vandalism was reverted, the exact same vandalism was repeated by 98.165.109.150.

There is now an AfD proposal for the article Wicked Wendsdays. Myselfthankyou is a single-purpose account which has made no edits apart from 5 edits to this AfD discussion. Special:Contributions/98.165.109.150 has made three edits to the AfD discussion, the vandalism mentioned above, and just one other, apparently unrelated, edit. These two editors have both argued to keep the article, while there is 100% consensus for deleting among all others who have contributed to the AfD discussion.

In the AfD Myselfthankyou stated that there was no proof that Lslavin13 and 98.165.109.150 were the same person, although there is no obvious reason for Myselfthankyou to take any interest in the question.

In the AfD Myselfthankyou defended the vandalism by Lslavin13 and 98.165.109.150 to Drmies's user page, saying it was not vandalism. There is no obvious reason why Myselfthankyou should have an interest in this matter.

98.165.109.150 made a comment in the AfD in response to a comment by Drmies. The comment by Drmies referred to Myselfthankyou, but 98.165.109.150 responded in the first person, as though it referred to 98.165.109.150. One minute later 98.165.109.150 deleted his/her comment, and then 6 minutes later the exacct same comment was repeated verbatim by Myselfthankyou, who then deleted it again.

In the same edit where Myselfthankyou repeated the comment, he/ she also changed the signature on another comment by 98.165.109.150 to make it appear to be from 98.165.209.150, suggesting that for some reason he/she did not wish it to be known that both these edits originated from the same editor.

I think there is sufficient evidence above to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that Myselfthankyou and 98.165.109.150 are one and the same, and also that he/she is trying to hide the fact. If, however, more evidence were required of the attempt at hiding the fact, in the comment which he/she made twice under both names, he/she uses the expression "that unidentified person" to refer to 98.165.109.150: evidently this was meant to be posted only as Myselfthankyou, pretending not to know who 98.165.109.150 was. The (no doubt accidental) posting of this as 98.165.109.150 rather gives the game away. The change to 98.165.209.150 looks as if it was an attempt to cover up this error by making it appear that the new edit accidentally posted as 98.165.109.150 was not from the same editor who had commented in the AfD before.


 * Summary: By accidentally making an edit as 98.165.109.150 which was meant to be by Myselfthankyou, by repeating the same edit, and by attempting to obscure the editing history by changing a signature, Myselfthankyou has given away that he/she and 98.165.109.150 are the same. Lslavin13 and 98.165.109.150 have also both made exactly the same edit. All of Myselfthankyou's edits and all but one of 98.165.109.150's edits have been either for supporting Lslavin13's article in the AfD or for repeating Lslavin13's vandalism. Twice Myselfthankyou has defended Lslavin13 in matters which would not seem to concern Myselfthankyou, and neither was particularly relevant to the AfD either.

JamesBWatson (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I admit to all accusations. I was a new user and wasn't quite clear on the guidelines. I assure you I have now read all guidlines and will from now on follow them strictly. I would also like to publicly apologize to User:drmies for removing the graphic from his page twice. I would also like to compliment User:JamesBWatson for that detailed summary. You are very good at investigating this kind of stuff. Anyway, I apologize to anyone I may have offended in this whole process. Thank you.User: Lslavin13 —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Remark about the above comment
 * For this statement by Lslavin13, I think we should assume good faith. It would make sense, I think, to block Myselfthankyou, but I suggest that Lslavin13 should be given another chance, and at present no action should be taken against this account. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think JamesBWatson's summary is accurate, and I endorse this request for an investigation. Lady of  Shalott  15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

I agree with LadyofShalott. JamesBWatson is to be commended for this accurate, detailed, and beyond-the-call-of-duty investigation. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Compliments to all parties. If all sockpuppet investigations went this way it would certainly make this a better place. Great investigation by James. Even better that Lslavin13 came clean (way to go, man!) and that level of honesty shouldn't be punished (unless it reoccurs). Blocking Myselfthankyou isn't necessary as an additional account can be used appropriately and ceasing additional edits seems to be the easiest solution. Associations between these accounts should be clearly identified IAW WP:SOCK. I went with WP:BEBOLD and added them on the pages for this new user for his ease. If you disagree with my actions, I welcome their removal provided the accounts are disclosed/removed in some other manner. If you do not wish to have this account any longer, you certainly can mark it as "retired" as well. Once again, excellent work by all involved. — BQZip01 — talk 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My inclination is still to block Myselfthankyou, since it is an account which has been used only for unacceptable purposes, and the user has not indicated an intention of keeping it for legitimate purposes. However, I don't really think it matters much, and I won't quarrel whatever happens to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

blocked indefinitely. I didn't block the IP, since it's really moot, and I'm willing to give Lslavin13 another chance. Just note that any further sockpuppetry will result in a block. J.delanoy gabs adds 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions