Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pantwearingdoom/Archive

Report date May 24 2009, 13:01 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Account created this morning to support edit-warring on article after told that BRD meant that people needed to have a discussion on the talk page about additions that the editor wanted to add. When asked, stated that the new account was his wife. Could be a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet, who can tell but the end result is the same. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Cameron Scott (talk)

Response to comment below: I wasn't actually bothered about the sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting and even gave the user a chance to revert themselves/get their wife to revert themselves before reporting it here. When I noticed that the Lynn header account has persisted in edit-warring, I *then* made the report here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties

Lynn Header account opened by my wife on the same PC as I was using. She opened the account to reinsert my addition to the Incredible hulk page, as she felt it was unfair that Cameron Scott seems to think he has the final say in what content should remain on the page. It must have happened before that two users in the same household have an account each? I've had a look at the rules regarding multiple accounts, and while I see that my wife opening an account in order to support my editing is against those rules, I am not in control of what she does on Wikipedia. Pantwearingdoom (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, since I am new to all this, I didn't know where Cameron Scott meant when he mentioned the talk page, and he wasn't exactly helpful about it.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)  See Defending yourself against claims.

Response to 2nd comment above: As I said, I can't be held responsible for my wife's actions. Not sure what you want me to do about her editing. She's a big girl, she can handle a dispute should you choose to go there. You're wasting everyone's time with this little back and forth, I can't MAKE her stop what she decides to do. If it was an "edit war", then surely you are just as "guilty" since you were countering without giving any explanation for it.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to the comment below from ThuranX, WHERE did I say I would not explain Wikipedia policies to my wife? I believe I said I have no control over her actions. She doesn't NEED me to explain anything to her, she can read, she knows the score. Such a chauvinist, even misogynistic idea you espouse. You actually believe I "control" her.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to ThuranX's 2nd comment, NOTHING I have written could be regarded as seeking conflict. I was actually appreciative of you trying to point out why my edit was rejected. You suggested that I "run" this household... and that IS Chauvinistic, POSSIBLY misogynistic. Not my place to say which it is, just as it is not YOUR place to pass judgments on my family life.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to ThuranX's 3rd comment, I never said I "will not" relay the information, I actually pointed out that there was no need to as she is now aware of the policies. The fact that she has made NO "transgressions" since learning about the policies appears to mean nothing to this proven Chauvinist. Interesting that ThuranX should be the "other user" who just happened to stop by here, interesting since on the Hulk page history, he is clearly working with Cameron Scott to keep the page in the manner THEY see fit. BTW, WHERE did I say there would be no cessation to the "pattern"? What pattern even? There is none, other than you and Cameron consistently acting as though you own the Hulk page.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"This computer may be used to browse and edit Wikipedia without a username, or for another user to log in"- Taken from the logged out message Wikipedia provides. "or for another user to log in", THAT'S what happened, NO sock account.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that thuranx is the most disruptive editor on all of wikipedia, this whole discussion is laughable.Thuranxisthejoker (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

I tried to explain to Pantwearingdoom that his wife's actions were in violation of policies, (see his talk page), but he replied that he can not, and, apparently, will not, inform her of policy so they can both work here better. ThuranX (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As seen above, at his talk, and mine, this editor is interested in conflict, not resolution. Although I made multiple attempts to explain the policies to them both, they aren't interested. In fact, he's stated they eitehr DO know policy and don't care, or don't know, and don't care. It was a bit hard to parse, and at that point, I'd already been insulted, and don't care so much now. His assertion that it's As seen above of me to assume married couples talk says more about the failing state of their matrimony than anything about me. I suggest both be banned from editing, until the actual wearer of the 'pants of doom' can be sorted out. I've got a suspicion already, though. ThuranX (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor has made clear that there will be no cessation in the pattern, claiming that he cannot do anythign at all to influence his wife's behavior. Unfortunately, this appears to also mean he can't jsut ask her to read the policies, abide by them, or even listen to him. Block both. ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

It is clear that, assuming good faith and accepting that this really is PWD's wife, the actions in this case amounted to meatpuppetry, as the edits by Lynn Header were obviously proxy edits. On the other hand, PWD is a new editor, and clearly wasn't fully aware of how WP:SOCK applies here. Furthermore, following explanations all round, it seems that the situation has reached an amicable conclusion on WP:AN, and that no useful purpose would be served by imposing sanctions on anybody here. Mayalld (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions