Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThoughtYouShouldKnow/Archive

14 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Actual sockpupeteer unknown. While Jimbo has stated that leaving messages on his talk page is not canvassing, using a sockpuppet to do so is not covered by WP:SOCK and is probably covered by WP:ILLEGIT per WP:SCRUTINY Ryan Vesey 00:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Expanding on the above comment, the user has four edits. The first, from November 27, 2012, was an edit to Sue Gardner pointing her to a discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page about topless boys. The second and third, From December 23, 2012,, were to discuss a scandal related to Kazakh Wikipedia on Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales' talk pages. The fourth, February 13, 2013, was to point Jimbo to a Gibraltar/DYK related discussion. Ryan Vesey 01:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This will be one of the banned users from Wikipediocracy. Prioryman (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not gonna find anything. They know how to keep their accounts unlinked so that CUs are useless against their accounts. Silver  seren C 17:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

I've looked at the accused's contributions and I see nothing disruptive about them. Why does a CU need to be done? Ripberger (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it is an obvious sockpuppet? It's not necessary for a sockpuppet to be disruptive for it to be blocked. See WP:SOCK. Prioryman (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not see, at least from the user's contributions and the evidence presented, that the user is in violation of the sock policy. The primary concern with socks is the creation of a "false consensus." I think this user may be a Single Purpose Account (WP:SPA) concerned with Wikipedia meta policy.  Per WP:SPA, "a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." If it is a sock, it is sad that the primary account holder fears he/she is unable to explain his/her concerns about Wikipedia's internal affairs.  There's a good chance (WP:AGF), in my view, that the user is not acting maliciously and that Part ii of the CU policy ("you must explain how [the alleged sock account is] being abused") has not been adequately explained by the filers. Ripberger (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I ran this check about a month and a half ago, and again today and still can't find anything to link it to a master for you. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  11:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed as nothing can be found. Rschen7754 11:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)