Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sfrantzman/Archive

Evidence submitted by George
I think this case quacks. Sfrantzman has made sporadic edits since 2004, and their user page identifies them as Seth J. Frantzman. Samsfranklin21 was a new account that popped up mid last year, and created a Wikipedia article on Frantzman as their first edit to Wikipedia. Before disappearing the very next day, they also edited an article on Little Lyford Pond camps - an article Sfrantzman had created about a small logging camp in Maine, which mentions land owned by the Frantzman family. It's pretty clear that Samsfranklin21 and Sfrantzman are the same editor. I suspect that Sfrantzman used the second account to create the Wikipedia article on them self (which is currently nominated for deletion), as a way to avoid the scrutiny that would have come with creating the article on them self from their main Wikipedia account - an illegitimate use of a secondary account. ← George talk 02:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So I'm fairly sure that it wasn't a case of forgotten password, as the main account returned after the sock puppet disappeared. It could be a family member, though I think that's less likely than it being the same editor, and I'm not sure if there would be any way to discover that other than through check user. The reason I filed this now is that the editor appears to resurface every few months for several years - the last time being December 2009 - so there's a high likelihood that they'll return. Maybe sock puppetry to avoid scrutiny while writing an autobiography (of questionable notability) isn't a big deal - I leave that up to you to decide. ← George talk 19:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Amory

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Perhaps, but there's no real evidence of disruption. Is there any reason to believe that Samsfranklin21 wasn't created when the original account lost the password? Maybe it's a friend/family member? A bunch of unknowns and, in the face of the past year, I wouldn't be willing to do anything unless one of them resurfaces. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just don't see a compelling reason, and a block isn't appropriate for something that there is no indication they/she/he would do. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 22:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)