Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PoemKeeper/Archive

Evidence submitted by Tb
User:PoemKeeper appeared out of the blue, as a single-use account, devoted to pushing a single controversial change to An Anarchist FAQ, and has been unwilling to engage in any compromise. I was surprised that this editor should have known Wikipedia policies immediately upon joining, and asked, "Have you edited Wikipedia before?" . He acknowledged that he had but when asked about his other account(s) directly,  he refused to disclose them. He has claimed to have "forgotten" his other account(s).

When I read WP:ILLEGIT, the use of multiple accounts is prohibited, especially when it prevents other editors from connecting various edits done by the same person. He expresses that he deliberately creates multiple accounts to prevent himself from being tracked:, claiming (incorrectly) that the ease of setting up Wikipedia accounts is to enable people to behave as he does.

This single-use account has been devoted not only to a single article or a single pattern of edits, but indeed, to essentially one single controversial change. That in itself is a big giant red flag.

Tb (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There remain three possibilities:
 * User:PoemKeeper is using multiple accounts simultaneously in violation of policy;
 * User:PoemKeeper has used different accounts in the past, but no longer does, and has switched accounts to make a "clean start";
 * User:PoemKeeper is using multiple accounts for one of the legitimate reasons identified in WP:SOCK and cannot say so publicly, but has followed the directions to notify checkuser privately.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Checking, although I should note that if this does fall under your third possibility (where PoemKeeper is a legitimate account privately declared) I'm not going to announce that connection publicly. As a result, my response here may be rather delayed. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * - The range is far too busy to identify any connections between accounts without knowing what else I'm looking for. In hindsight, I am a bit leery of doing this anyway since it does seem to lean a bit towards the fishing side of things. If you do believe this is a legitimately declared account, you may want to contact ArbCom via email - they won't tell you the main account if there is one, but they may be able to confirm or deny if that's even the case. Non-arb Checkusers aren't usually given access to those emails unless they're declared to the Functionaries list (and I've never seen one sent there). That said, if this account is proving disruptive, then things can be handled just on those grounds. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And this is the reason clerks need not be so hasty in endorsing cases for CheckUser attention. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more solid evidence that this current account was being used abusively before a check was ran. That said, a check was ran and the results were exactly what were expected. When a SPI request is filed with a single user and no suspected sockpuppets listed, CheckUser is going to prove almost useless and generally serve only as a fishing expedition. I mean, without other accounts to link the "sockmaster" to, how can we even be sure the account is a sock instead of just an SPA? Tiptoety  talk 05:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the user in this case did admit to using other accounts, which is the only reason I took a look at all; if the range was relatively low-traffic, it's possible I may have been able to identify another account. In general, however, and even really for this case save for what I just said, Tip is correct. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * taken. If you wish to pursue some form of other administrative action in regards to the account being an SPA, please do so at WP:ANI. Tiptoety  talk 06:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention and time. Tb (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)