Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MichaelPhelpsFoundation/Archive

16 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

all single-purpose accounts re-creating or editing Michael Phelps Foundation within the last couple of weeks after the master was username-blocked JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: the master was soft-username-blocked, with a notice saying "you are welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you", so one new account is allowable and (though it would have a COI) should not be counted a sockpuppet. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Before creating the Michael Phelps Foundation article, I had read through all of the policies and guidelines for the Wikipedia Page. After reading through the most recent comments on my last attempt to post the Michael Phelps Foundation article, it seemed as if users were telling me that it was unfortunate that the article had been speedily deleted so many times initially because it could have been fixed in a way that the article would have been acceptable--if only the first attempt had not been posted by an account that seemed to represent the Foundation. If accordance with those comments, I thought it would be best to avoid another unnecessary speedy deletion,so I completely edited the content of the page (took out the bias, added more sources, did more research about other aspects of the Foundation such as its court case and popularity, and made it sound far less promotional) but it seems as if this article has gotten too much attention already. I find this unfortunate because I have done so much research on this topic and I would just like for it to be posted, rather than wait for another less-knowledgeable user to come along to post the same article. What do you propose that I do in order to get this article published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JazzBeat72 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Exceedingly likely if you look at the article each time it was created. Endorsing to rule out any of these being meatpuppetry. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following are the same:
 * Swimming2012 is a match.  TN X Man  13:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm assuming too much good faith here, but I think we should leave one account open for now. I've changed the blocks so that JazzBeat72 is unblocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since, as I noted above, the master was soft-username-blocked and invited to set up a new account, I was coming to do something similar. I think I would have left a week's block as a sign of disapproval of this rather egregious socking, but I won't revert your unblock. I will leave a note on the user's page. JohnCD (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Swimming2012 is a match.  TN X Man  13:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm assuming too much good faith here, but I think we should leave one account open for now. I've changed the blocks so that JazzBeat72 is unblocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since, as I noted above, the master was soft-username-blocked and invited to set up a new account, I was coming to do something similar. I think I would have left a week's block as a sign of disapproval of this rather egregious socking, but I won't revert your unblock. I will leave a note on the user's page. JohnCD (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm assuming too much good faith here, but I think we should leave one account open for now. I've changed the blocks so that JazzBeat72 is unblocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since, as I noted above, the master was soft-username-blocked and invited to set up a new account, I was coming to do something similar. I think I would have left a week's block as a sign of disapproval of this rather egregious socking, but I won't revert your unblock. I will leave a note on the user's page. JohnCD (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)