Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattwebb11/Archive

19 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These accounts are SPAs, or nearly so, regarding the De la Beche Club. Both had also been inactive for some time - the putitve master, since March 2011 - until that article was put up for AfD, at which point both appeared to argue for keep - using essentially identical arguments. ,. , requesting CU for confirmation. The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 19 July 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

 * Like you said, it's a duck, no CU needed. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quack quack. Msr blocked indef as a sock; Mattwebb11 blocked for a week (technically, 'to end of the day the AfD ends on') for socking-to-votestack. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Everybody's blocked, so closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sticking my nose in here (I hope comments on closed SPIs get noted). I disagree with the conclusions of this SPI. I think the User talk:Msr69 unblock request is convincing and very likely truthful; this was not a sockpuppet, but at most a conflict of interest and unwitting meatpuppet. "Hey, experienced friend and perhaps mentor, someone on Wikipedia is trying to delete the article about our club." At best, running a CU would show "possible", but it's unsurprising they'd be geographically similar. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that not only are Mattwebb11's and Msr69's comments at the AfD virtually identical in wording, Msr69's !vote (which was posted first) had its wording changed (by Msr69) to be nearly identical to Mattwebb11's !vote before Mattwebb11 even voted. Even if this isn't a sock, it's clearly meatpuppetry, which is, by Wikipedia's standards, treated identically to socking. That said, if anyone else wishes to unblock, I won't oppose it or consider it wheel-warring, it's just that I'm rather unconvinced by the explanation. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I already unblocked. Yes, there was probably meat, but neither pernicious nor blockable. The unblock request from Msr69 was, to me, entirely believable. Further, I don't see any indication that either user was in any way warned or advised that there were any problems with their edits (which would have easily taken care of whatever problem existed; these appear to be reasonable people.) I'm hardly a softy when it comes to sockpuppets; I've probably identified and blocked more than most checkusers, and have no patience at all with people who attempt to use multiple accounts to feign consensus. This doesn't feel at all like that. (Incidentally, it's hardly wheel warring to accept an unblock request.) --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)