Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wetman/Archive

Evidence submitted by Cirt

 * Use of Disinfoboxman to edit-war at Ponte Vecchio
 * 22:23, 20 August 2008 - Wetman collapses the article's infobox, using navbox, with edit summary, Introducing the less-aggressive Disinfobox: a mouseclick on the discreet tag reveals the Disinfobox, in all its disinformative glory!
 * 22:33, 20 August 2008 - Reverted edits by Denimadept (talk) to last version by Wetman = inappropriate use of WP:ROLLBACK tool by Wetman, to edit-war on issue that is not vandalism.
 * 12:29, 21 August 2008 - After Wetman is reverted a 2nd time, new account Disinfobox steps in to revert with edit summary, You can even get it to float right, you know.


 * Disinfoboxman talking to Wetman
 * 23:29, 20 August 2008 - The content of disinfoboxes is not at issue, only a more elegant, less aggressively intrusive display. - Comment by Wetman at his user talk page about collapsing infoboxes.
 * 13:06, 21 August 2008 - Bravo, Wetman. An excellent solution. With a bit of tweaking, the hidden disinfobox can be floated to the right. See, for example, (diff) - Disinfoboxman shows up to comment addressed to Wetman, about collapsing infoboxes.
 * 13:58, 21 August 2008 - Thank you, Stranger, that's irresistible now. Who was that masked man? - Odd reply by Wetman to Disinfoboxman.


 * Use of Disinfoboxman at Featured article review pages, WP:POINT
 * Featured article review, Augustan literature
 * 11:44, 12 November 2008 - Delete. No infobox. Also various incorrect commas, and missing dashes. - Sarcastic comment by Disinfoboxman at Featured article review, saying he wishes for a Featured article to be deleted because it is missing an infobox.
 * 15:30, 12 November 2008 - I am not going to fix it either, because 3/ like you, I am one of those people "just talking" who doesn't care enough to do anything about it. I suspect we may disagree about whether such "failure" is very important.
 * Featured article review, Colley Cibber
 * 11:26, 19 November 2009 - Delete with maximum prejudice - no disinfobox at all, unlike many far more important articles - Use of Disinfoboxman account to again make sarcastic comment at Featured article review.
 * 19:29, 19 November 2009 - Well, I'm sure there is a word for it. Delete - remove, expunge, erase, efface, cancel, wipe out, excise, eradicate, obliterate. Surely we can't keep featured articles by a notoriously "abusive sockpuppet", can we? Particularly if they don't have the requisite density of footnotes, or have too many adjectives. - Reference by Disinfoboxman to the account, sock of  . (Interestingly, Geogre had used the Utgard Loki account in a similar fashion, to make disruptive sarcastic comments at Featured article review pages, while saying with his main account that he was uninterested in participating in the FAR process.) Cirt (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Cirt (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

D - edit-warring with Wetman and Disinfoboxman over infobox placement; F - use of sock to interfere with and cause WP:POINT disruption at Wikipedia process pages. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * is ❌ to . However is   and . Brandon (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please hold any blocks, further investigation ongoing. Risker (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Review complete, no blocks warranted. Cirt, please disengage here. I have been advised that you had been informed prior to this SPI request that this account was operating within policy. Risker (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not so advised. It would seem appropriate to block and . Cirt (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * After a thorough review of each and every page where these accounts have overlapped&mdash;both of them&mdash;I have concluded that there is no sock abuse here. Blocking those accounts would not help the project, and would likely do the reverse. Cool Hand Luke 20:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So all the associated accounts will be allowed to continue to edit? Cirt (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's not even a prima facie case of abuse here. No blocks are warranted. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. It would be best if the userpages of and  are labeled as alternate accounts of, so there is no confusion in the future. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't cause disruption by reverting Cirt's tagging of the above accounts as socks, for a short while, but has the connection been proven 100%? I don't see it, I only see "likely" not quite the same thing at all.  Giano   21:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also this. Cirt (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)