Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Northenglish/Archive

01 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

User states double account is based on SOCK under the doppelgänger use legitimacy. However, doppelgänger criteria states its use is for "a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to prevent impersonation". My issue is that these two user names are not similar in anyway, so I do not see the possibility of impersonation or misunderstanding. The doppelgänger tag is applied to the users "main" page with a link to a talk page for discussion however their is no explanation that I could find within that talk page showing justification for dual accounts. I'm pretty sure their reasoning for its (doppelgänger) use is improper according to SOCK. If I'm wrong, please explain it to me. —ASPENSTI— TALK — CONTRIBUTIONS 15:46, 1 March 2011 (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

 * - Sorry, maybe I'm missing something here. Northenglish hasn't edited since 2008, Kacie Jane since May 2010 and Kéiryn never. Why has this been brought up now? There's not much point in taking any sort of action on accounts that are that old - and given that they're that old, they're also stale, so no CU can be run. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of when this user ceased editing, I just came across the situation by happenstance and it appeared to be in violation. I'm just looking out for the community. Perhaps the editor should have used retired as opposed to doppelgänger? —ASPENSTI— TALK — CONTRIBUTIONS 17:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The WP:SOCK first two sections could cover this, and even if it doesn't declare, the Legit ones are just examples of ways that users can have legit other accounts. The policy does not say you can't have an account if you don't meet these reasons, it says "Reasons include" (which should probally be changed to "Reasons include, but are not limited to"). We can't go assuming that people have a bad intention. Please excuse my law application here, but were arresting someone for not doing anything wrong, but for doing something that is not clearly defined as "right". DQ.alt (t)  (e)    17:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Im a bit confused with what you're saying. I quoted SOCK which states "A doppelgänger account is a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to prevent impersonation. Such accounts should not be used for editing." To me, it's clear as day that this editor was not using a doppelgänger account the way wikipedia clearly spells it out. A doppelgänger is to be used in the situation when someone creates another account "similar" in name to prevent impersonation. This user #1 did not create a name similar to the one they were previously using. And #2 used their "doppelgänger" account to run another user page and make edits and so forth. Both of these actions clearly go directly against what SOCK "doppelgänger" say. This is a pure definition of a sock puppet. It's a manner of utilizing 2 separate wikipedia accounts with no legit justification. Now, I understand the user hasn't edited in some time, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they are in violation of policy. Whether they misunderstood the policy or it wasn't intentional, I can't say. But it is indeed against policy as defined above. Perhaps the editor should have used retired as opposed to doppelgänger? —ASPENSTI— TALK — CONTRIBUTIONS 17:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, I stumbled up the situation while going over some of my older edits. I once or twice had a conversation on a talk page with Northenglish an then just found it weird that they had multiple accounts for no reason. To my understanding thats agains policy and I was just looking out for the community. —ASPENSTI— TALK — CONTRIBUTIONS 17:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't mean to be as hard as I came across in the first one. I am taking the broader aspect of WP:SOCK which is the disruption of the community or attempting to decieve. Checks on user accounts by checkusers (which was originally requested, but declined because it was stale) requires evidence of abuse or decieving of the community. In WP:SOCK "Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus." I'm also pointing the security/privacy sections of WP:SOCK. Let me know of any further questions. DQ.alt (t)  (e)    19:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's cool. Just a misunderstanding. Thanks for looking into this anyway. —ASPENSTI— TALK — CONTRIBUTIONS 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No Problem. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  02:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)