Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NRDCfactchecker/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Barely bothered to substantially change their name, but still editing with the same blatant COI motive. No dialogue on talk page, frustrating because it's not a commercial enterprise so nothing really to gain by COIing to aggrandize the subject, but the behavior still should not stand on WP. JesseRafe (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (moved from below) I'd recommend flipping the above recommendation. They claim to have had trouble somehow changing their username so made a new account. The older master name is a clear COI, so the puppet is actually an acceptable individual name. If they understand the purpose of Wikipedia and stay away from COI-vio edits, I support a strong warning from a party other than me on the NYC account and a permanent block on the NRDC account. JesseRafe (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2019 (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

 * - Declining CU.  qedk  ( t  桜  c ) 14:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Recommend soft-blocking the master and hard-blocking sock. If any more turn up, we can play whack-a-mole.  qedk ( t  桜  c ) 14:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * SPI policy is to block the master but for the purposes of this particular SPI and on the basis that they will engage in editing non-disruptively and not edit in this topic, I do not mind JesseRafe's recommendation being put into place. -- qedk ( t  桜  c ) 16:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no overlap in terms of timing here, so I don't believe this user has abusively used multiple accounts. I believe the user initially edited under User:NRDCfactchecker, received a notice that they needed to change their username, and had a problem doing so with the automatic request tool, so they made a new account for their edits. While renaming the account would have been better, there's nothing improper here, the user hasn't violated WP:SOCK. (In fact, if their original username had been softblocked instead of warned, the block message would have explicitly stated that they may create a new account with a compliant username.) In light of this, I have softblocked the "master" for the username violation, leaving a note on their talk page explaining that we understand that they already created a new account, and that they should continue using that account. I've taken no action against the new account. ST47 (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Old stuff yeah, but editing separately in a timeframe does not mean it's not socking. Engaging in disruptive behaviour from an old account and continuing that on a new account is still socking (think of it like a clean start where the editor is not entitled to it). The point in the SOCK policy "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" states this. Since both of these were clearly making POV edits to Natural Resources Defense Council, it would qualify under our policy. Either way, I have no issue with the administrative decision you took, just thought I'd let you know. -- qedk ( t  桜  c ) 21:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see why you say that, but I would have pointed to an earlier part of WP:SOCK: it is improper to use multiple accounts (called sock puppetry, or socking) to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies (from the lead) or Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. (from the first section). This case isn't a great example because it's entirely possible that the user should be blocked for some combination of COI and PAID, but I've seen SPIs where a user may have simply lost access to their previous account, or accidentally edited while logged out, and I think it's important to pump the brakes in those cases rather than calling WP:SOCK and blocking everybody. In any event, this seems like it's just an academic disagreement :) ST47 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)