Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NWA.Rep/Archive

13 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is probably all going to be too stale, but I think that all three of these accounts are the same person, and the Sky Divine page was enough to spur this. In short, the China=Shame on NWA.Rep's page is almost identical to that of Sky Divine's page, to the point where if it's not the same person, they definitely were doing it together. They also both have the orange message bar thing in common. Ryeinn links to NWA.Rep back when NWA was known as User:Certified.Gangsta. NWA.Rep has since removed the link on Ryeinn's page and stripped the China=Shame content from Sky Divine's page, which I see as trying to hide evidence.

If we could also see what other accounts might be hiding, that would be nice.

Please note that NWA.Rep is a current ArbCom candidate, it would be nice if this could be settled quickly.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  09:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Clearly not the same person, though probably someone from the same school. Hans Adler 09:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that says, let alone what it proves.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  13:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually think it lends more weight to Scen Manguard's argument that they are the same person. Sven, I think Hans Adler is pointing to the "Certified.Crybaby, Certified.Hypocrite" thing that matches NWA.Rep's old name Certified.Gangster.--v/r - TP 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the connection, I'm just at a loss for interpreting it. Looking at my comment, I can see how it looks like I was going after Hans, that wasn't my intention. It was an expression that this case just keeps getting weirder all the time.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) The difference is that "certified gangster", when read in context, appears to be a positive self-description, whereas "certified crybaby" and "certified hypocrite" are obvious personal attacks. This is confirmed by the following edits (given in chronological order):   . Hans Adler 19:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A WR contributor believes that Sky Divine was actually parodying NWA.Rep's userpage. This revision and this revision suggest that Sky Divine might have been offended / angered by what he or she saw on NWA.Rep's userpage and decided to mock NWA.Rep in return. As Hans Adler has pointed out, these two individuals are far from being friends. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with WR here --Guerillero | My Talk  22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. "It is very sad that he gets treated like this just for running for ArbCom." The intellectual level of discourse over there is even worse than what we have here. It's not clear to me why we suffer such jokers here in the first place. A single WP:NOTMYSPACE-breaking user 'edits' (mostly edit wars with his classmates) under the accounts "Certified.gangsta", "Freestyle.king" and "Bonafide.hustla", gets several blocks under each, and when he is caught doesn't get indeffed? And we even let him run for Arbcom? Hans Adler 23:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Not having a poor reputation" is not a requirement for nominating oneself for ArbCom. The nomination process is as open to hopefuls as possible, which is why the criteria isn't that difficult to meet. I also don't believe that NWA.Rep is Ryeinn. NWA.Rep seems to be highly distrustful of Ryeinn. NWA.Rep accused Ryeinn of vandalizing his userpage anonymously. @NWA.Rep: You claimed that there are people who were accusing you of being Ryeinn. Can you please link to the incident that caused you to modify Ryeinn's userpage? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't so much that we let idiots run for Arbcom. The problem is that even when an obvious good-for-nothing attracts attention to himself like mad that's still not enough for him to get indeffed. We indeffed TreasuryTag, and after two months he couldn't return yet because of his many blocks -- 1 per 9,000 edits. Now this guy doesn't even have 9,000 edits, but he has had an arbitration case plus 5 blocks, not counting various block enhancements or those blocks which were subsequently marked as not entirely kosher. That's ten times the number of blocks per edit that TreasuryTag has, and it's all in plain daylight with this disruptive brat standing on a pedestal in the middle of our market square faking a heroic pose, and nobody sends him home to his parents. It's just ridiculous. Hans Adler 01:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we please stay on topic? We're here to discuss whether NWA.Rep is a sockpuppeteer, not whether he should be indefinitely blocked. If you want to discuss MWA.Rep's competence, then you may go to WP:RfC/U. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * firstly, just noting that Sky Divine and Ryeinn are both . Based on the behavioural evidence, I fail to see a link between Ryeinn and NWA.Rep: this is based on the fact that Ryeinn refered to NWA as pompous, which NWA later redacted, expressing annoyance. Considering that Ryeinn appears to have had no other interaction with NWA I don't see how this is a case of abusive sockpuppetry. In terms of Sky Divine, this was a slightly more complex case, and there is overlap between NWA and Sky Divine. However, this mostly appears to be conflict, rather than collusion: for example:    . In addition the two users appear to have disagreed strongly about how to use the term Taiwan in context of the Republic of China; Sky Divine seems to have some strong opinions on this, as shown here and here, where he points out that the term Taiwan should not be used unless used in conjunction with the term "Republic of China" (i.e. he does not view Taiwan as an entity in its own right); however, NWA does not seem to share this approach, e.g..
 * With all this in mind, I am closing this case: there is a lack of evidence to a) link the accounts or b) prove that they have been used maliciously. There is defiantly a strong possibility that we are seeing parody/harassment of NWA occurring. Best wishes, SpitfireTally-ho! 01:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)