Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RKDia/Archive

06 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

While I'm still assuming good faith, I'd like to point out that all of these single-purpose accounts have been heavily contributing to Karen David (see version history). Could all be just coincidence, but I'd like to know whether there was some foul play involved creating this article. bender235 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

I can assure you that there has been no 'foul-play' from me or my account. - Gemmamerritt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.13.95.244 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I can vouch for myself and 3 of the users in your list, we are all independent separate real living people, I don't know who the others are or why you have named them. As fans of Karen David we created a team to edit her wiki page with photos and facts, we coordinated our group activity and continue to monitor Karen's page to keep it up-to-date and free of untrue or dubious editing, and even acts of vandalism. That's why we appeared on here at the same time and have done very little editing on other pages; this is our area of interest. Any future expanse into other areas will be the concern of each individual outside of the group, if they so wish. To be accussed of foul play is extremely disappointing and hurtful in the least and in the most it is defamatory and potentially libellous, so please remove it at the earliest oppurtunity. RKDia (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
A lot of these accounts are and I don't think there's enough activity to warrant any further actions. That said -RKDia, please be very careful about the phrases you use ("defamatory and potentially libellous"). Wikipedia takes a very dim view of people that use legal threats to discourage other editors. TN X Man 15:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Granted my wording may have been strong, so I withdraw that sentence. However, it still stands that the user made an allegation against an innocent party that is publicly viewable. What kind of judicial system is allowed to run like this in any country? I, along with a select few other fans, took that page, Karen David's, from virtually nothing to what it is now, we enlisted the help of admins to get us through copyright and other problems, and I spent long long hours reading as many wiki manuals as I could; of course our user names were going to appear regulalry - we were building something from almost nothing! If I had the time and the energy I would take this to a much higher level in the wiki hierarchy, what's happened here is wrong and it's discouraging, to the detriment of constructing a comprehensive, fully-informed, online encyclopedia. RKDia (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If the suspicion was wrong, I apologize. Having seen quite a few SOCK cases over the years, RKDia, you've got to understand my concern here. While Wikipedia pages like Karen David's are often written by fans, they are also prone to WP:SOAP. Half a dozen single-purpose accounts just rang a bell on my side. --bender235 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do take on board that an overzealous desire to put down every little fact about what a person is doing can cause the article to stray into the realm of promotion. This is where an experienced editor is needed to guide and almost mentor the people who have been seen to do the majority of creative editing on a page; sounds great but difficult in practise, obviously. RKDia (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)