Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plaintalk2010/Archive

Evidence submitted by Rapido
Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes started by Corowitz. Plaintalk2010 makes first contributions 20 minutes later - on the same article. Username and contributions suggest this is the author of this self-published book. Plaintalk2010 also adds information to All-American Basketball Alliance (2010). Geoffgregg's only 2 contributions are to the same two articles as Plaintalk2010's. Rapido (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * More evidence: this user's real name appears to be Corey Washington, which sounds similar to the username "Corowitz". Stonemason89 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional evidence of evasion of three-revert rule.
 * The edits of edits clearly follow from two sequences of events with edits by.
 * From 22–24 January 2010, Plaintalk removed the notability tag from Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes (removal, 1st revert, 2nd revert). In my edit summary of my final revert to re-add the tag, I said "please allow an independent editor to make the call on notability." Two days later, Geoffgregg's first edit was to remove the template.
 * On 30 January 2010, in the article All-American Basketball Alliance (2010), Plaintalk2010 added certain material to the article. When it was removed, he reverted the article twice (1st, 2nd). He was then issued a 3RR warning. Five hours later—and 25 hours from the original addition of the text—Geoffgregg reverted and readded the text (diff).
 * Geoffgregg has made no other edits. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Rapido (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

To ensure these are genuine sockpuppets, and not a coincidence.


 * This is probably moot, given the look of the AfD. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, is that a decline then? Rapido (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Have these accounts acted in any fashion that is abusive, other than editing the same article? I don't see vote fraud or attempting to avoid a block or level 4 warning. Unless they have, I see Luna's point, that there's no need for a checkuser. I think the best course is to explain the rule to the Plaintalk2010 account so he can use a single account on a go-forward basis. Now, if there's abuse at some point in the future, then we consider whether a checksum is needed (or the quacking might be loud enough to just block on sight)—but, hopefully, with an explanation now, there's no problem later. —C.Fred (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I take your point. The main issue I see here is, Geoffgregg reinstating the same promotional paragraph (without explanation) that Plaintalk2010 wrote and that was removed by other editors thrice before. Possibly to avoid a 3RR/edit warring block? Rapido (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC) EDIT: same thing here regarding a notability tag.


 * I stand corrected. While the edit to the Plain Talk article was not after a 3RR warning, it was after a request for an independent editor. The edit to AABA was after a 3RR warning. I'll add evidence above. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

– I think this looks more like meatpuppetry/canvassing as opposed to straight socking. As Luna Santin said, it's pretty much a moot point, looking at the AFD. –MuZemike 19:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)