Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PutSomeRespekOnIt/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Both users actively editing Kris Jenkins within seconds of eachother, editing the same things, and these are their ownly edits. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Assuming for the sake of discussion that these two accounts are in fact being run by the same person, can you clarify what specific policy violation is involved here? In the absence of a specific policy issue, this may not even qualify as sockpuppetry at all, and (IMO) it certainly wouldn't justify CU action.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I just have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "CheckUser" does. I didn't realize that it was such a big thing that needed justification. I was under the mistaken impression that it was just a simple tool to verify sockpuppetry. I of course defer to the judgement of those who are more knowledgeable that I. You also make an excellent point that assuming for the sake of discussion that these two accounts are in fact being run by the same person, I don't actually see any specific violation other than abusing multiple accounts. Again I defer to your judgement and thank you for the note! -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See (and carefully read) WP:CHECKUSER. A CU check requires reasonable grounds to suspect disruptive editing behaviour.  Even when sockpuppetry is suspected, it is still necessary to articulate a good reason why a CU check will significantly aid the SPI.  This is necessary in order to prevent abuse of CU as part of fishing expeditions.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * copy that! Will give it a good read now. Thanks again for your guidance on this matter. Is there a good way for me to withdraw my request for a CU? Based on the new information I no longer think one is warranted. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've "declined" your request for a CU check, which means this SPI will be examined as if CU had never been requested.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've left a note on both accounts' talk pages, explaining that use of multiple accounts is generally discouraged even if no disruption is intended, and inviting the user to explain if he is in fact using multiple accounts for a valid reason. Since the activity of these two accounts so far doesn't appear to exhibit any improper behaviour, I see no grounds for an SPI and will be closing this case now.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)