Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PowerShares/Archive

12 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both accounts appeared as SPI accounts to make edits to PowerShares shortly after User:PowerShares was blocked as a spamusername. I have blocked Kovitt224 as an obvious WP:DUCK although Rneyland is less certain (contributions were minor edits). ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * The new accounts were formed within an hour of the other being blocked, and made edits only to that page. My guess is that there is less than 10% chance that this is a coincidence. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have a feeling that this is not going to end here. Paid advocacy will set in sooner or later here. It was an elementary error on their part to use that user name, but they will learn and persist, until we fix that page ourselves. Will probably take less time that way than playing ping-pong with them for the next 6 months. I will try to fix that page in a week or so. History2007 (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I added a couple of refs to that page and mentioned commodities, etc. but I think that is enough. Any more will begin to read like a product handout. So Kovitt224/Rrneyland/etc. I think that is as much free exposure as this is likely to get in Wikipedia. Any more will probably start another round of this discussion. History2007 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when are diffs needed for a checkuser request? I have posted several SPI cases and this is the first time one was declined due to lack of diffs.
 * In any case:
 * User PowerShares:
 * User Kovitt224 shortly after PowerShares was blocked:
 * The SPA User Rrneyland's appearance shortly afterwards is suspicious but no diffs to confirm other than editing the URL for the PowerShares company. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * based on the diffs now provided, Kovitt224 and Powshares look the same, Rrneyland in interestingly spamming with Powershares' name. As to why, the new management like the paperwork complete, i's dotted, t's crossed, that sort of thing.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  17:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "New management"? I thought we, particularly we who are admins, are the management. Although I can understand that the burden should be on the nominator to provide sufficient evidence, in this case I had already blocked the two obvious accounts, so diffs weren't necessary for those. The only one needing a checkuser was Rrneyland, which has no relevant diffs. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You may read this discussion archive for more information regarding diffs. In short, it's the checkuser's neck (and potentially the entire Wikimedia Foundation's neck) that's on the line if they make a bad check even if it came from SPI, so we need people to show to us that there are reasonable grounds for suspicion before we can proceed. It has nothing to do with paperwork. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that link. I respect your decision to decline requests based on lack of diffs, but had I seen that discussion, I would have pointed out that this policy won't work in many cases of block evasion, in which a blocked editor creates a new account for participating in an AfD to support keeping an article the blocked user created. In such cases, no diffs are available because the two accounts are editing different pages. The only things we can go on are account creation dates and observed topic of interest. For that, a checkuser is still needed, and you won't have diffs to work from.


 * Even in this case about PowerShares, the only checkuser that mattered doesn't have relevant diffs to compare to the sockmaster. The accounts in which diffs mattered, I had already blocked, so diffs were irrelevant and not necessary to provide here. Because diffs are impossible to provide for the only account mentioned above that really needs a checkuser, your declining the checkuser request made little sense from my perspective. I think this policy needs to be re-thought. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exceptions can and will be made as necessary. In cases like the one you describe above, other forms of evidence can be accepted, such as account creation times, etc. However, it is still the case filer's responsibility to provide that evidence. You didn't do that here. In fact, you didn't even mention it, thus my procedural decline. We don't have time to do the searching for case filers. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (od) I concur with Deskana. Allegations that two accounts are connected must be substantiated or we will decline to check, simply because our time is limited. Obviously, the editor opening an investigation would spend much less time substantiating their submission than a checkuser or clerk would spend in investigating two accounts from scratch—as we must do if allegations are given without evidence. We simply ask that you help us to help you. I cannot think of any situation where an allegation could be brought where no evidence existed. If diffs are not applicable, then some other form of evidence will exist; and we will expect this evidence to be supplied. AGK  [•] 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes that makes sense, although I did state above that the accounts in question were created after the sockmaster was blocked. I agree I could have fleshed out the details a bit more. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At the moment the accounts' edits are growing stale so closing as no action taken at this time. Please refile if there is new evidence.  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  17:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)