Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unknown Puppetmaster/Archive

Report date February 25 2009, 20:27 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Notabilitypatrol (talk)

Contention

User:Nathalmad is a sock, most certainly a meatpuppet. If a sock, he may be a sock of User:MikFantastik, User:Lew19, User:Golbez, User:Deadcow13 or User:Mrschimpf.

Background

1. Too Beautiful to Live recently went through a spate of vandalism from newly registered and one-off accounts that followed the topic of the article (a radio show host) exhorting his listeners to "patrol" his wikipedia account. Multiple new users deleted fully-cited, but controversial, statements, as their only edits to the article before disappearing into the ether.

2. User:MikFantastik, a recently registered editor whose only edits were to the disputed page in question, was ultimately warned by an admin for lack of civility (namely, changing User:Notabilitypatrol userpage to state User:Notabilitypatrol was mentally unstable and then posting a suicide hotline phone number), following which he made a very public show of announcing he was disgusted with wikipedia and was leaving.

3. User:MikFantastik and other drive-by vandals subsequently left and the article has been carefully reconstructed by congenial users interested in participating in wikipedia in a positive and proactive way. Spirited but polite debates and disagreements have been hashed out on the discussion page for this topic.

Evidence (Circumstantial but Sensical)

User:Nathalmad registered the day after User:MikFantastik very publicly left. He has:
 * 1. only made 5 contributions - all to the disputed article or discussions about the disputed article occurring on its discussion page, user talk pages or in discussions on the talk pages of other articles that touch on the disputed article
 * 2. despite the fact he is a 2 day old user has demonstrated a very evolved and complex understanding of wikipedia policies and procedures that are would be extremely atypical of a new editor
 * a. 1st contribution ever to wikipedia: The issue doesn't seem to be if these events you described happened, you've clearly proven that they have. The issue                    seems  to be if they are in fact controversial, or if you are giving undue weight to them. I was unable to find any reliable sources that bother to mention                     these events or any controversy around them. In all your examples for persons with controversy sections, they all have at least one third-party citation                     saying it is controversial.
 * b. 2nd contribution ever to wikipedia: Wikipedia already has an article on objective standards for determining notability. To create a new system would be                superfluous. We are discussing if the article "Ron & Don Show" meets notability using Wikipeida guidelines, not your own system.
 * 3. has taken a subtly sarcastic, passive-aggressive tone in his small number of contributions from his initial contribution (less than 24 hours ago) that would lead a reasonable person to believe he was "not new" to these discussions
 * 4. has replied to questions and concerns regarding vandalism, in an extremely quick way, that were left on User:Lew19 talk page even though User:Lew19 himself has refused and not replied to any attempt at contacting him regarding his liberal use of "undo" without discussion (for which he was warned by an admin)
 * 5. Stated in his Talk page: I never made the decision to resolve any discussion. The issue was brought up in August of 2008 if Too Beautiful to Live was notabile enough to warrant an article of its own. At that time in the discussion, editors agreed that there was sufficient sources to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. A 2-day old account referencing a 6-month old discussion? There's no other explanation other than this is a sock. (Obviously he didn't have to be registered at the time to simply "observe" the discussion but, taken in tandem with the great body of additional evidence presented, makes this idea stunningly incredible.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notabilitypatrol (talk • contribs) 02:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Violations Violation of WP:STUFF - namely creation of the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists

Request for Action User:Nathalmad may be User:MikFantastik, User:Mrschimpf, User:Lew19 or another. Request is for checkuser to determine if so, and corrective action if indicated. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Um, please tell me you're kidding about this investigation. My edit history is open to everybody; just because I made one edit to an AfD and share a first name with somebody else doesn't make me a sock of anybody. My almost four years here and 12,500 edits should tell you that I would never sock anybody. I have better things to do than have to respond to a claim that I'm going around impersonating others when it doesn't make any sense to do so. I am in Sheboygan, Wisconsin on Charter Communications over server dhcp.fdul.wi.charter.com. Hopefully that clears up any sign that I'm anywhere near Seattle and only voted on KIRO-related articles over their merits, rather than any personal interest on the subject. Thank you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize in that case, User:Mrschimpf. I'm content with this plea of innocence and, in light of it, narrow my accusation list to User:MikFantastik, User:Lew19, User:Deadcow13, User:Golbez.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notabilitypatrol (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your apology, I accept it. I have no hard feelings about this, but ask that you be careful and check through user contribs before making base assumptions.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * I can't do anything with this unless you have a better idea who you think this sock belongs to. A checkuser will decline this as and I can't do anything with this unless I have two accounts to compare to, and no I don't have the time to figure out who the account belongs to from a list of N people. My suggestion is to close this case until a better idea of who is using the sock puppet is available. If the puppet is being disruptive, an admin may block for disruption, but not for sockpuppetry. ——  nix  eagle email me 17:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * this report appears to be a variation on a theme of Sockpuppet investigations/Radiocop, where two of the potential master accounts are claimed to be socks of . Beyond that, I have to agree with Nixeagle. If the complainant can't decide who is the sock master, how does he expect anybody else to do so? There is no way that a fishing trip with CU will be sanctioned, so this case is a dead duck.Mayalld (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions