Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pokerdance/Archive

Report date September 14 2009, 04:56 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Pokerdance was blocked for two weeks on Aug 25, 2009. D.C. Blake was created on Aug 30, and edits in a very similar style: extensive runs of sequential edits, and lots of reversions. The two accounts share a strong interest in Lady Gaga. Pokerdance identifies on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pokerdance/Userboxes as a 14 year old boy, while User:D.C. Blake identifies as a teen-age high school student.
 * Evidence submitted by Kww

is also telling: Pokerdance completely rewrote it on Aug 10, doubling its size. In the recent merge discussion at Talk:Fashion (Heidi Montag song), D.C. Blake is the only one arguing against the merge.

It's probable that the motivation here is to evade a 0RR restriction imposed by an agreement between Pokerdance and Toddst1.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As for Luna Santin's comments, the intent is undoubtedly to evade the 1RR restriction. Pokerdance is a redeemable editor, and not inherently disruptive, although he has a strong tendency to edit-war that is not helped by having socks laying around in the drawer. My feeling as to the best thing to do is to block the socks, but allow Pokerdance to edit with his main account so long as he abides by his agreement with Toddst1 about 1RR.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For that matter, Pcdfan678 was used exclusively for block evasion.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * I agree that this is Pokerdance. My suspicions were confirmed when the D.C. Blake user nominated the Lady Gaga article against consensus for GA, something that Pokerdance tried a few times before also. Other confirmations are as Kww stated above. However I still donot support his coming back on Wikipedia as I don't see that this user is here for a WP:CLEANSTART. The same 3RR reversions and going against consensus is still there, alongwith continuous arguing and WP:OWN behaviour. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the suspicions above. I had a fiercly contested AfD with Pokerdance over the deletion of Fashion (Heidi Montag song). The article passed AfD and so i nominated it for merger instead. Immediately D.C. Blake use got involved bringing up much of the same comments that were made at the AfD nomination and even proceeded to remove the merger discussion. If the user really wanted a fresh start then why did he/she make it clear that they had been involved in the AfD discussion? This behaviour made it seem as a larger proportion of the community was actually interested in the progress of the article than what may have been the case. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Requested by &mdash;Kww(talk) 04:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * for checkuser attention. Nathan  T 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

✅ =
 * Conclusions

J.delanoy gabs adds 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agh, edit conflict. I second those findings, though I'm not sure that I see malicious intent, here. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More recent postings have colored these actions in another light. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the sockpuppets indefinitely, and Pokerdance for 1 month. This seems like a clear case of block evasion to me. If he shows remorse and understanding that his actions were wrong, any administrator may unblock him. NW ( Talk ) 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)