Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NorthPark1417/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ANeil_Sabatino&type=revision&diff=893918954&oldid=893808829 Anon's first edits are to a recently draftified article that NorthPark1417 (who was recently given an indef for UPE) was working on. Bergen County Vocational Technical School District does not appear to be a likely location for spoofing as has happened with this editor in the past. Suspecting block evasion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Added Pacific305 for impersonation + obvious overlap. Praxidicae (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that behavioural evidence for Pacific305 is not sufficiently clear and that a review may be in order. The writing style and approach on talk pages is radically different between the two editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I've added TheGhostOfHoldenCaulfield as this account was started the day after NorthPark1417's indef block started and after minor edits to two unconnected articles they edited one of the three articles by NorthPark1417 that were moved to draft Draft:Mint 400 Records due to likely UPE and COI, which seems a strange place to edit if they are unconnected, request checkuser again, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to comment that they seem quite competent ie coi policy, help requests, pinging editors, researching user's edit histories so they do not look like the newbies they are claiming to be, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I ran the accounts previously before this SPI was filed, and told Praxidicae to file one on behaviour before I saw this:
 * Pacific305 and TheGhostOfHoldenCaulfield are ✅ with one another but
 * Both named accounts are to NorthPark1417
 * TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Cabayi (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - I'm swayed enough by the behavioral evidence to request an indef for the socks. Cabayi (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cabayi - ✅. I've blocked the two accounts but held off on blocking the IP (too stale now). Let me know if I can do anything else for you. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, I should have been more explicit and said named socks, shouldn't I? A great piece of mind-reading, thanks. Cabayi (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cabayi - No worries; this is exactly what the training phase is for and why it's important. :-) Yes, specificity is very important when it comes to SPI reports - especially with clerk requests and actions to be taken. It's all good though... you're learning and gaining experience, and that's the truly important part. :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   21:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Received an OTRS ticket today regarding this (ticket no. on Pacific's talk page). I think Walter is correct in assuming the editors are different, it is pretty clear Pacific is confused about how Wikipedia works and we are just accusing them of random things. Putting it on hold, so that you decide on next steps. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - was blocked 23 April after interaction with, then  is created on 24 April editing in the same narrow field as NorthPark1417. I have no access to OTRS so I'm in no position to evaluate Pacific305's appeal, but the evidence I can see looks pretty damning. Does Pacific305 offer any explanation? Cabayi (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an appeal, they just wanted private information hidden (it wasn't particularly private as all the information on their talk page was public anyway, so I blanked it). But, they did reiterate what they posted on their talk page - 1) they do not understand the backend of Wikipedia, 2) the other account wasn't theirs and they wanted to know who it was so they created an account for the first time, that's all. The final point was that no evidence was offered and they felt they were being accused of things. That's about all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, now I see what was getting at in his follow-up post.
 * Taking the most charitable view of events Pacific305 may just be the victim of poor timing and a poor choice of username in regard to that account. However there has still been no acknowledgement of, or explanation for Pacific305's sock, TheGhostOfHoldenCaulfield. Also, Atlantic306's concerns about Pacific305 not being on their first trip to the dance floor ring true. The most lenient treatment for Pacific305 as a first time puppetmaster would have been a 3 day block. Due to incivility the block was increased to a TPA block.
 * So, the question is, given the WP:COI, WP:NOTHERE ("I don't really care what happens from here, I don't care if all of wikipedia is gone tomorrow but what I do care about is my name and the things I have put my time and effort into building") & WP:CIVIL ("I don't even know if you are just some asshole", "What bullshit!", "Can someone who isn't an asshole help?") issues, would a 3 day block have been increased to indef? If so, any reconsideration is moot. If not then possibly the block should be reduced. I defer absolutely to your judgement. Cabayi (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise, maybe they aren't the same editor (in which case let's document it as such). Personally, I feel they are different, primarily because they didn't complain about the block, and I barely see socks (as listed here) state they just want some personal informaton removed - seems too well-intentioned to me. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cabayi, QEDK, Walter Görlitz - If we have doubts that Pacific305 is a sockpuppet user, then they should be unblocked - no questions asked. Their incivility, while not acceptable, is probably related to this SPI case, the accusations, and the block that was placed in his/her account... which, okay, isn't unreasonable given that we might be wrong here (There's a lot of text on Pacific305's user talk page; I didn't read through it, so if I'm wrong about this assumption, please let me know). If there are unrelated issues with this user (COI, possible WP:NOTHERE), then this should be discussed and looked into in a discussion at the proper noticeboard (WP:COIN or WP:ANI); it's not fair on Pacific305 to block them on the basis of sock puppetry, discover that we may be wrong based on the evidence given, then just convert their block to an indefinite COI/civility/NOTHERE block without a proper discussion and without giving Pacific305 a chance to respond to it just because "well, we're here already, so..." - given the doubts expressed here regarding sock puppetry (even by Walter Görlitz), I have unblocked Pacific305. If the user needs administrative action regarding other behavioral or editorial issues, a discussion should be started so that those issues can be examined properly.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the editor regarding the same. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Closing - Pacific305 has stated on OTRS that they do not intend to return and are fine with how things stand. Seeing nothing more to do, closing. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)