Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naabzist/Archive

15 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

See Payman.php report at AIV. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 14:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And now User:5.221.235.95 re-creates the same page. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 18:41, 15 October 2014 (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

 * Clearly we have either one editor, or else more than one editor acting together. It is also clear that the page they have twice created is of no value. However, I see no sign of abuse of multiple accounts: no block evasion, no attempt to vote-stack in a discussion, no use of multiple accounts to edit war and avoid the three revert rule, nor anything else. I suggest telling them that they are likely to be blocked if they continue to create unsuitable pages. After that, if they continue, a WP:NOTHERE block would be in order, but I see no grounds for a block at present. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I ask you to reconsider. We have 2 user accounts and 2 IPs, clearly under control of the same person, that have introduced inappropriate, unusable, foreign-language text, to the same article, within 3 days, and refused to discuss it. Their intent to abuse multiple accounts to make it appear like multiple users were interested in this article is clear, otherwise why go to the trouble of creating a second account and also editing from two different non-logged-in IPs? With regard to the edits themselves, while not 3RR, this slow-mo edit war is clearly against policy and has already wasted the time of multiple users, and there is no indication that they have any intent of contributing anything useful. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 11:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully understand what you say, and I am fairly close to making a block because the editor(s) is/are not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. However, except in extreme circumstances, such as serious libel, I am against blocking an editor who has never been warned that a block may be coming: under most circumstances our approach should firstly be to politely explain to an editor what we think is wrong with their editing, secondly if they continue in the same way make it clear that it is not a question of just "on the whole I don't like what you are doing", but of "what you are doing is not acceptable, and you must stop or else you are likely to be blocked", and only thirdly resort to a block. As for the specific issue of sockpuppetry, while you may well be right in believing that it is one person, it could just as well be two people working together, but either way there is no abuse of multiple accounts. Nothing that has been done is in any way worse because it was done from two accounts and from IP addresses than it would have been from one account, and using two accounts is not in itself against any policy or guideline. If and when the user(s) has/have been told what is wrong with their editing, and warned that continuing may lead to a block, I will be happy to block on the basis of one more edit similar to those that have come so far, but I really do not see any justification in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for blocking at present. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. There were the AFC submission declines, so they shouldn't be completely unaware, but those don't specifically warn of blocking. It seems like there needs to be a stronger decline message issued the second time, like the other progressive warning templates. Anyway, I've warned them now. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 01:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)