Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waterman12/Archive

18 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

A new user (Xmarc) jumps in to a deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/The Gurdjieff Journal without any prior edits, to defend the article in a style similar to that of the article's author, Waterman12. We can see from the history of Xmarc's talk page that the user structured their edit on their own talk page before posting it to the deletion discussion- and these edits comprise the entirety of Xmarc's contribution to the encyclopedia. Both users contribute to the discussion in a format that is not entirely standard for AFD discussions. Waterman returned to the discussion to agree with Xmarc's argument wholeheartedly. Xmarc's immediate gravitation to this article (contrary to their claim to be a "frequent user") seems to me to suggest either a sockpuppet or some sort of off-wiki collaboration, both of which taint the deletion discussion. Ducknish (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Response A new user (Xmarc) jumps in to a deletion discussion… without any prior edits /as was noted by Xmarc999 at the beginning of the discussion\

…the user structured their edit on their own talk page before posting it to the deletion discussion /and this is bad because??? Actually, it was a newbie mistake of clicking on Talk instead of “edit this page”\

Both users contribute to the discussion in a format that is not entirely standard for AFD discussions. /???? - Please point user to discussion of standard formats for AFD. By the way, in my world, AFD stands for Automated Fuel Dispenser.\

Waterman returned to the discussion to agree with Xmarc's argument wholeheartedly. /Undoubtedly due to the cogent force of my arguments. To which content, no editor has actually responded.\

Xmarc's immediate gravitation to this article (contrary to their claim to be a "frequent user") seems to me to suggest either a sockpuppet or some sort of off-wiki collaboration, both of which taint the deletion discussion. /Wikitionary defines a user as “One who uses or makes use of something, a consumer.” I find entirely different definitions for “contributor” and “editor”. Note also that xmarc999 is a frequent contributor on a number of forums (outside of Wikipedia) and a cursory Google search will confirm this (i.e. a real person). My understanding is that Waterman12 is a wikipedia contributor on Gurdjieff related articles. I do know him, mostly via email. He provides web support for the Gurdjieff Journal website. He requested some material on The Gurdjieff Journal, a periodical on which I provide editing support, to create an article. He later informed me that the article was scheduled for deletion, and I sent an email outlining actions I thought should be taken. The contents of that email were more or less what I later posted in the deletion discussion. As a consequence of the resulting hissy fits, I will be performing any future edits to the article (assuming it remains) to avoid any hints of “off-wiki collaboration” (what others might alternately refer to as “journalistic corroboration.”)\

Discussion has also been opened at Ducknish's Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ducknish Xmarc999 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)xmarc999

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm working through this. Xmarc99 has admitted to off-wiki collaboration. Whether or not that is actionable, I'm not sure. I'm also not 100% sure that this isn't a case of sockpuppetry, but I'm still checking. Just an FYI, Xmarc999 only recently began editing (at least under that username) but is not technically "new", their account was created July 2006 which makes that account older than mine! If these are sockpuppets, I'm not sure which would be the "master". In any case I'm still looking over this. --  At am a  頭 19:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to believe what Xmarc999 said above. It's completely plausible, and not totally self-serving. It seems odd for Waterman12 to have a sockpuppet sitting idle for more than 7 years, just to bring it out for an AfD. Also, the communication styles of the two editors are different, Xmarc999 seems to have better communication skills (which is probably why they were recruited to argue at the AfD). The admission above shows off-wiki collusion, though not the extent of actual meatpuppetry in my opinion; I don't see one editor telling the other how and what to edit, just asking for support. It's evidence of canvassing and worth a warning, at the most, for Waterman12. There is also an admission of a pretty clear conflict of interest for both editors, which I made a note of at the AfD. I don't see that any administrative action needs to be taken against either editor at this point, though I've tried to add some transparency to the AfD so that these editors don't unduly influence the discussion. I'm requesting closure of this investigation since I don't believe sockpuppetry to be taking place. --  At am a  頭 19:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)