Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Squatch347/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Timings are same. MarkAQuinn has only 29 edits. Jumped to defend his argument right after a "keep" vote was added to AfD.

Both thinks that the article should be deleted because:


 * "if you strip the bloat from an obscure source, the subject is left with very little,"
 * "we remove uncited materials and fringe authors there is essentially nothing left in the article"

Typically using the most irrelevant arguments such as those laid out at WP:ATA to claim that the article should be deleted only because it has "obscure" source (when there are several WP:RS) and vehemently trying to enforce that article should be deleted only because of content issues; "don't think anyone is arguing that the subject isn't notable. The question is about the article itself."

Furthermore, both editors are commenting on an AfD for the first time. Orientls (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Looking back over Orientls concerns, the majority of it seems to be that we shared similar reason. Or, more precisely, that MarkAQuinn was mimicking my arguments. My concerns about sources were not unique either as they were shared by Otr500 as well.

Nor is this my first time on an AFD discussion. I nominated a successful AFD in the past

MarkAQuinn's 29 edits were over about a three week period on a variety of pages only one of which I was also active on.

Orientl's analysis of post timings seems unwarranted. None of the timings seem the same at all. The MarkAQiunn account seems to have existed for a month and a half (with no interaction) before I was directed to the AFD following a sock investigation for Falconfly. Nor is Orientls' statement that the account jumped in immediately following a keep comment accurate. There were several keep comments before it showed up and several delete comments. The Mark account showed up in the middle of the discussion, posted a single comment and disappeared. Which seems to have been its MO for several AFD page discussions it participated in and, I'd note distinctly different than my discussion with Orientls about sources.

I currently have no alternate accounts nor have I ever had an alternate account. The MarkAQuinn account appears to have been active in a variety of pages, so the block of them as an editor seems unwarranted absent more than one single similar argument on an AFD that was also used by several editors. Especially from an editor that has been making an opposing argument both in that thread and on the Tabiti page in general. I have no history as a sock master and would like to keep my name clean. Therefore I'd like to request a review for more substantive evidence. Thanks for the consideration Squatch347 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have responded to Squatch347's message on my talk page. -- The SandDoctor Talk 00:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:TheSandDoctor was kind enough to detail his initial investigation for me and the reasons that he went with a sock master finding initially. We have (I hope I'm not speaking out of turn) agreed that this was a reasonable error and that I am not the sock master for the MarkAQuinn account (assuming it is a sock)  Here is the diff of his excellent exchange.  Squatch347 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * One of the accounts is editing through a VPN, so Checkuser is worthless. Their UA, a common one, is identical, though. Courcelles (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Squatch347 blocked 31 hours, MarkAQuinn indefinitely. Both per WP:DUCK based on behavioural evidence as CU was ineffective. Closing -- The SandDoctor Talk 17:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)