Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TeleComNasSprVen/Archive

Evidence submitted by Andy Dingley
This is an overt WP:DOPPELGANGER account, not a covert sock. I'm concerned about mis-use of it, not secrecy, so if there's a better venue than WP:SPI to raise this, please close this and redirect me to it.

The two accounts seem to be operating in good hand / band hand fashion, contra to policy.

I picked this up last night after a series of PRODed articles on 1960s racing cars, including some minor Lotus models, a name that ought to be well known enough to deflect most passing accusations of non-notability. Whilst the articles had issues, mostly refs, they were classics for fixing WP:BEFORE, not speedy deletion.

The editor also appears to have singled out one editor's contributions and scatter-gunned the lot with justifications of "Unencyclopedic" and "[image] not used much anywhere" (example). Whilst having to WP:AGF on motives, this is the sort of blanket action that looks far too much like bias and is never to be recommended.

I see the use of the two accounts though as problematic and contrary to policy, particularly the way in which the "sock" account tags for deletion, but the name credited for this is the main account. That splits edit history and responsibility in a way that's surely not acceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to say bluntly, that this SPI is enhancing the DRAMA around here, not alleviating it. There are a couple of other venues that you could have taken it to, (WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:DRR, WP:AN). To address your other points, you should already know about the legitimate uses of an alternate account that I've pointed out multiple times ( is correctly tagged, the talkpage redirects to my main account's talk, so concerns are raised there; WP:SOCK #1: "Security: Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, users may register an alternative account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts" and #5: "Doppelgänger accounts: A doppelgänger account is a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to prevent impersonation" allows my using the other account on public computers, such as my school library. I can probably see where you are coming from about the bias, but I assure you, there is no large amount of bias interfering with these actions, (whilst I can never confirm nor deny the complete absence of bias, as everyone has some of it to a degree). Lastly, others, mostly admins, have already gone through the several deletion requests I made with the alternate account and have notified me on my talkpage with the few declines that they make, and in the interim, not once have they complained about abusing another account. So why do you bring it up now? And I have not even contested your removal of the prods and brought the articles to AfD, I let you have them. Other prods that I've put up, whether with one account or the other, have not suffered this type of criticism either for having both accounts at the same time. So again, why do you bring this issue up now, when other editors have passed it by? :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  10:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly you had this account tagged as a doppelganger. I note that you've realised yourself this was inappropriate and have now changed it.
 * Secondly though, whatever this account is labelled as, and whatever uses policy does permit for alternate accounts, the problem is your actions in using it. You seem to be in clear breach of a clear prohibition: using one account to avoid accountability from your main acccount - specifically by linking the actions to claim the "prestige" of the main account, but excluding these actions (and any negative connotations they might attract) from the main account's edit history.
 * What justification is there for this? If it's a legit doppelganger, why is it editing? If it's an "on the road" account, why not just use it as such, making its own edits to its own history? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please reread WP:SOCK #1, though I've already pointed it out, I'll provide the rest of the paragraph: "Security: Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, users may register an alternative account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts. Such accounts should be publicly connected to the main account or use an easily identified name. For example, User:Mickey might use User:Mickey (alt) or User:Mouse, and redirect that account's user and talk pages to their main account."  :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  00:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a legitimate use for an alternate account. That may even be what you're doing. However what you're also doing: good hand / bad hand camouflage, is not a legitimate use.
 * I would also point out that you were claiming an entirely different story (doppelganger) until a couple of days ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So now we're whittled down to the assertion that I'm engaging in "good hand / bad hand camouflage" which is, I believe, an untenable position. As of the time of this post, I have yet to see solid evidence (in the form of the diffs) that this is exactly the behavior that I have been engaging in; may I retract this post if this is not true. To the above example of a deletion request, I'm simply doing what any other editor would have done in my position were he/she to disagree with another; open a discussion to gauge consensus on a certain matter. When an editor uses a legitimate alternate account, clearly shows his/her intentions to other admins, who has seen the actions and existence of both accounts as having originated from one and the same, which is evident in said actions; discussed with several other editors about the possible existence of an alternate account, which who themselves have encouraged the creation of; and has used the userpage and usertalkpage in the past to clearly link to the main account even before the account even existed&mdash;as far as I can tell, I simply fail to see where this camouflage that you claim exists is coming from. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  09:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * I agree with Andy. When I pointed out the good hand/bad hand implications and the need to tag TCNSV as a legit. alt. acct. (as I myself do with User:Purplebackpackonthetrail) rather than a dopp, he brushed accused me of attacking him and refused to change it!  That doesn't bode well, IMO.  In addition, this user seems to be more than willing to throw policy at other users, but he seems not to be able to get a CLUE and abide by it himself.    Pur ple  back pack 89    15:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (from Andy's talkpage) "Other editors"? You mean you right? This allegation "...TeleNasal guy started out making trouble for me on Simple WP, then started making a few similar edits here" shows a lack of good faith and a continuation of a personal grudge on your part. Your charge in this so-called investigation is also patently false; check the timestamp for this edit again and compare it to the time when you posted your information on the investigation or when the investigation itself began. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  10:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I retract my statements about your alt. acct. being improperly tagged, but I am still very concerned about the handedness of the accts., and the disruptive nature of his taggings. You were blocked on Simple WP for disruptive and CLUEless edits that had nothing to do with me; among other things, you tagged President Clinton for QD; in addition to hounding me by placing unnecessary tags on articles I had created or edited.  When you switched over to here, and continued making those types of edits here and here.  Then you made a lot of CLUEless and disruptive tags.  That's not on me, that's on you.  Perhaps, Andy, we should move our discussion and focus on his tags rather than his accounts.   Pur ple  back pack 89    15:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See now, that last remark is indicative that you want to use Andy in your little GAME in POKING parts of other editors (whether it be their contributions or their use of an alternate account) and to find a weakness with which to exploit and do BATTLE. Please stop adding fuel to the flames you've spread and start contributing elsewhere in the encyclopedia, preferably constructively. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't get it, do you? If you make disruptive edits, and it's very clear to me from your talk page that numerous editors think you have, it's not my fault if I point them out or request action.  It's not Andy's either.  And it's not GAME, POKING, or BATTLE to request disciplinary action against a disruptive editor.    Pur ple  back pack 89    02:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "You were blocked on Simple WP for disruptive and CLUEless edits that had nothing to do with me..." "it's not my fault if I point them out or request action" Attempts to obscure the truth will not help you. You were also blocked on SEWP for similar reasons; and considering your past history of blocks due to incivility, WP:BITE, and other concerns (you were left off leniently in a 72 hour block after a probationary measure was taken instead of the usual 30-day one) how do you plan to "call for disciplinary action" against an editor whom you've had multiple disagreements with? And you've probably forgotten, but doing so, and yet you continue to do so, and in addition to accusing him/her of disruption and giving the appearance of CANVASSING ("Perhaps, Andy, we should move our discussion and focus on his tags rather than his accounts") to try to continually get an editor out of your way, is in itself disruptive and a blockable offense, especially on this SPI case. In this, you have also shifted the discussion elsewhere, possibly in attempt to reconnect with Andy, and made several false arguments particularly irrelevant to any sockpuppetry concerns raised, which is why this SPI is open in the first case, in what seems to deflect the comments elsewhere, and thus your reasoning is wholly invalid. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  09:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly not the right place to discuss this. If problems are raised about the actions of the user, please go to RFC/U instead. wiooiw (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree; this should probably be closed as there is nothing for the admins to do since he admits the other account is his (and always has).  — Soap  —  00:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
What a mess. These are obviously the same person - everyone here knows that. The real problem here - an apparently complicated behavioral issue - is outside SPI's ability to resolve. Please take to ANI or pursue dispute resolution. No action taken on SPI's part. T. Canens (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)