Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sammanson/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Interested in the same Australian surf-rock band "Hush Puppy". Sammanson's creation was here. The original editor was blocked under spam/username violations, then socked under "SamManson99". Then, this user comes and makes a similar article here. Don't know what you think, but this is much more suspicious than a coincidence… — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 13:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * From the replies by Georgia, I am increasingly thinking that they are two different people incidentally editing the same article. However, taking Primefac's comments into account, behavioral matches can still link these two accounts. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 13:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Seems pretty clear to me that both the Sammanson and GeorgiaKenn articles were written by the same person — near identical content and structure, with quirks like using '[Single]' in section headings. Also, GeorgiaKenn does not give the impression of a new user registered only five days ago. Only circumstantial, I know, but sure quacks and walks... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello - again, if you're interested in learning more about myself, please view the following link... I'm finding this situation extremely bizarre and am becoming more and more uncomfortable on this platform. Especially being discussed in such a manner. Thanks. GeorgiaKenn (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I used information from the draft that was already created by the user you're claiming to be myself - I'm struggling to see how you are finding this situation far-fetched? Is it not possible I've recycled information? Or used a generic artist template?? Again - absolutely saddening love... GeorgiaKenn (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My contributions to Wikipedia also go beyond attempting to create an article for said artist - which you'd realise if you took the time to view my profile properly. It appears as though the user you're talking about is also blocked/has not made contributions outside of that one article... goodness me deery GeorgiaKenn (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Tamzin,
 * I am uncertain BUT, I do believe the article either; a). Came up as a suggested edit on my Wikipedia home page (as it appears the 'Manson' version was in Wikipedia's 'live space' at a point, according to its edit history) OR, b). I would of found it via searching the draft/unpublished space to see if someone else was knowledgeable enough on my chosen topic. In which case, saving time/resources. Either way, I believed recycling various aspects of the initial article would have been beneficial for my own...
 * Warm regards,
 * Georgia. GeorgiaKenn (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Greetings Tamzin,
 * I do understand/appreciate your concern here... AND all though I WILL oblige to your request in one short moment - I'd like to mention that; I still do not believe it is rather far-fetched of someone to simply search for the existence of a desired topic within Wikipedia's draft space, prior to constructing an entirely knew one of one's own.
 * I apologies that my initial response did not satisfy, but it is in fact the truth.
 * On a side note; I believe it is also worth mentioning that I very much appreciate yourself being able to see my 'good faith'... All though I am not the person in question AND suppressing how repetitive and tiresome this ordeal is becoming - the amount of human touch you displayed there is what is keeping me willing to progress in improving my writing skills/further enjoy my journey as a Wikipedia user.
 * PPS: If you could kindly keep an eye on your inboxes.
 * Again - warm regards, GeorgiaKenn (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you'll find my work email/response within your inbox via option one of the 4 you've suggested - thanks again :) GeorgiaKenn (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'll be honest, I'm not overly convinced; I've been chatting with Georgia on IRC the last week or so while she has been working on the draft, and when asked point-blank whether she had multiple accounts she gave the responses I would expect from someone being honest (i.e. not the "expected" response from a sockmaster). In other words, I have no reason to doubt who she says she is, and I can't see a reason why she would edit in the manner that Sammanson was editing, and then edit under her own name. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Technical evidence doesn't quite match up (different parts of the country) but I won't stand in the way of a behavioural match, as I would view myself as somewhat involved. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I ask how you found the Sammanson version of the article? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an unusual case. There is sufficient evidence—based on shared interest, tone in interactions, certain distinctive tells in writing style, and of course the reuse of an obscure old version of a page, which Georgia has not been able to satisfactorily explain—that in most cases I would see grounds for a block. However, Georgia puts forward an image of someone who is here in good faith, and I'm inclined to believe her that (even if she is Sammanson) her interest in the band is that of an enthusiast, not someone with a conflict of interest. At the very least, Draft:Hush Puppy (Australian band), whatever its issues, does not read as spam.There is an unwritten rule that a certain amount of skepticism about past accounts is set aside if someone chooses to edit under their real name. The idea being that opening up about your real identity is a trick you can only do once. (There may also be some notion that those of us who edit under our real identities are less likely to misbehave, although I'm not sure if that's true in practice.) So, between the real name and the generally constructive disposition of Georgia's edits, keeping in mind that WP:NOTPUNITIVE applies even to sock blocks, I am inclined to close this without action. However, that rests on one critical assumption, which is that Georgia really is the Georgia Kennedy she linked to. In Sammanson's short editing history she showed duplicity regarding her identity, so this is a real concern. I will close this without action if you can verify your identity for me. There are four ways that come to mind that you can do this:
 * Set your work email as your account's email address, if it isn't already, and then contact me via Special:EmailUser. The contents of the email aren't important; what matters is that MediaWiki will pass along your email.
 * Contact me directly at wikimedian@tamz.in from your work email. Likewise content doesn't matter.
 * Contact info-en@wikimedia.org from your work email with a subject line like "Identity verification (ATTN: Tamzin)", and link to this conversation in the body. That will go to our volunteer response team, of which I am a member.
 * Say something on some sort of social media that verifiably belongs to Georgia Kennedy of Western Australia Music, in some way acknowledging that you edit Wikipedia. Doesn't need to go into details.
 * Assuming that you can verify in one of those four ways, then you have my apology in advance for asking this of you—but given Sammanson's history of duplicity, I don't think I can close an SPI without action if part of my basis for that decision is an unverified assumption that you are who you say you are. I hope you understand. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You know that it's a matter of public record when a domain was registered, right?  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 11:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)