Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miamiboyzinhere/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
and others ... see earlier case

Evidence submitted by McDoobAU93
Back in February 2008, editor Miamiboyzinhere began changing categories for attractions in the Orlando area to say "Greater Orlando" or remove them from previously-established categories in order to satisfy his opinion that Orlando categories were only meant for attractions within the city's physical limits. When other editors reverted his changes or offered contrary opinions, Miamiboyzinhere began leaving insulting edit summaries. On 22 February 2008, editor was blocked for two weeks for continued disruption. Soon afterwards, Miamiboyzinhere began socking in order to evade the ban and continue his disruption. Editor was blocked permanently on 7 March 2008 for continued disruption. However, evidence suggests that Miamiboyzinhere was itself a sock to another editor, User:Averette. For an initial example, observe how an edit by one of Miamiboyzinhere's socks is made, then reverted, then how Averette appears to defend the sock's edit with a somewhat more defensible edit. Admittedly this appears as though Averette and Miamiboyzinhere may simply share the same opinion, but the evidence seems to suggest they shared a lot more.

In January 2008, prior to Miamiboyzinhere's disruption of the Orlando attraction articles, editor attempted to add an image to Sunset, including adding a photo credit to the image's description. The image was credited to one Marc Averette, and upload data in the confirms user Averette uploaded the photo. After the image was reverted by other editors, Miamiboyzinhere reverted the edit four times within 24 hours. This raises the question, why would the editor violate 3RR to add an image that wasn't his own and insure that the image was credited to another user?

In May 2008, Averette attempts himself to add the exact same image to the article, again claiming (in essence) that his photo is better. Again the image's improvement is challenged and again, Averette rushes to its defense. Averette's apparent M.O. is to let the issue calm down, then re-attempt his edits. User gets reverted and is asked to take it to talk page, issue calms down, then user returns again to impose his version of things.

Which brings us to the current situation. Averette has decided a situation (regarding where Orlando-area attractions are categorized) has cooled down enough for him to start making changes again. On 18 April 2010, Averette recreates his desired category and begins re-categorizing articles. As before, his work is reverted per prior consensus, and when his category is nominated for deletion, he becomes defensive and degrades others' opinions.

While on the surface this appears to be a situation better left at AN/I, the ultimate issue is whether or not Averette has violated WP:SOCK by operating a bad-hand account, let alone a pattern of general disruption on articles where consensus may differ from his own opinions.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Ridiculous. Miamiboyz apparently was trying to reinsert the photo I had uploaded in 2007 because it is a photo of MIAMI. Isn't there a way to look at IP addresses? Why are you wasting people's time with this? - Marc Averette (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I have no interest in Orlando. I was editing simply as an observer.  I couldn't give a rat's ass about it, or any of those places near it that cater to those ugly, fat, pale tourists that frequent it.  I suspect that you're one of them.  -  Marc Averette (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, easy with the personal attacks. I can only imagine that being accused of sockpuppetry isn't the greatest experience in the world, but resorting in insulting the user who opened the case is completely inappropriate and uncalled for. — ξ xplicit  01:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I will refrain from it.  I will also not comment any further on this issue.  I'm done with it.  Do what you will.  I believe my history speaks for itself.  I've done nothing but make Wikipedia a better place.  -  Marc Averette (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
No action taken. The behavioral evidence isn't convincing enough to make a connection. In addition, the other socks are way too stale to do a CU. –MuZemike 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)