Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whitewater111/Archive

10 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Although these users do not share similar editing times, they do share similar editing habits. First, to the editing times, I would not use that to determine yay or nay if this user is a sock of the master, as they have so few edits it cannot be used to accurately determine such. As to their behavior, Whitewater's very first edit is to argue in favor of the article that Mboer has stated are both about him and his station. White's first edit aside, they again demonstrate knowledge of wikipedia markup, such as indentations.

We also have similar styles:
 * White water's use of variants of 'note'
 * MB's use of variants of 'note'

In case it was not noticed in the above two diffs, both White and the suspected sock use variants of noting several times in both of their posts, not to mention they have a similar style for posting their arguments. They have also both been attached to the fact that a certain radio station was not deleted as theirs was.

As MB is denying that they are a sock, or have a sock in regards to the Whitewater user, this would violate WP:SOCK, and I do believe CU is required to determine if this user is indeed a sock, or master, given the lack of any other information aside from behavioral evidence. —  Dæ dαlus + Contribs 01:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Added as it was created today, also, going to G4 the article.—  Dæ  dαlus + Contribs 02:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, seems it was already deleted.—  Dæ dαlus + Contribs 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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

I recommend the MBoerebach sock and leave the main account, Whitewater111, unblocked....if it is shown to by the CU to have only the one sock. I recommend this because the user is (I believe) new and does have Aspergers with limited eyesight. This should be taken into account when deciding what to do. I know this won't be the most popular recommendation and I am probably stepping on some rules, but I feel leeway is needed. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 01:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend we encourage him to admit that he's used 2 accounts and offer him the choice of which one to use from now on, and not block either of them. And I recommend to MBoerebach to tell us now if there are any other accounts not yet turned up (Special:Contributions/Lukepowner is a possible, but it could very easily be someone who just happened to see the article before it was deleted). After all, declared alternate accounts aren't forbidden, as long as they are not used to try to "cheat" on policies such as WP:3RR.    —  Soap  —  02:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not 100% clear that MB was denying the use of multiple accounts; he said he found "the accusation of noting that I've created several accounts" to be offensive, but that could as easily be taken to mean that he admits using several accounts but merely finds mentioning that to be offensive (for whatever reason). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I would like to state my case in relation to making multiple accounts. First I declare that the MBoerebach, Whitewater111, and the IP 122.104.213.53 accounts are mine.   I did make three accounts as noted, as I originally received harassment messages under my original accounts, which was just my IP address.  As I have asperger's syndrome and a vision impairement, I found the multilayered page structure of wikipedia confusing, and this coupled with the intimidating messages I received, rather humiliating.  I thought AussieLegend and Kww were also doing the same, and trying to outdo me.  I mistakenly retaliated. Suddenly finding three articles about me attacked, and proposed for deletion within the space of one week, seemed to be more of a personal attack, rather then following wikipedia policy.    I thought an invitation to rescue would of been more appropriate, but it seemed I was to be outdone here to.  In the end, I found it rather bizarre that the WSFM article has no "third party" references, yet it sits unchallenged.  There seems to be a strong bias from the wikipedia community here for commercial FM stations, over internet stations, hardly a wikipedia I call being neutral.  I know wikipedia is not a place to promote my station, but this also sits for WSFM, as well as 2PR FM.. Whitewater111 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Demi, although that is the statement I was referring to when I cited that diff, it can still be taken as denial as the user stated they did not edit the article, yet here we have a confirmed user, Luke, who has clearly done such. I also want to know why this account is not referred to by the user above this reply.—  Dæ  dαlus + Contribs 04:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From the user's statement: "I did make three accounts as noted"...he refers to it just not named. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 04:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the entire post, you would see they refer to the IP address. Take this part, for example: First I declare that the MBoerebach, Whitewater111, and the IP 122.104.213.53 accounts are mine.  I did make three accounts as noted, as I originally received harassment messages under my original accounts, which was just my IP address.(emphasis mine)


 * Lastly, please do not characterize my posts.—  Dæ dαlus + Contribs 04:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't clear enough, they name three accounts, and name the IP account as the third, instead of Luke.—  Dæ dαlus + Contribs 05:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the failure to mention Lukepowner remains unexplained.

On the other issue, as I said at ANI, I read "I'm not editing any of the articles" as meaning that he is not doing so at present and won't in the future (presumably after the idea of COI was pointed out to him), not that none of his accounts had ever done so in the past.

However I have to agree it rather stretches AGF when one looks at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard where Lukepowner comments right underneath Whitewater111 (and less than an hour later), with allegations of bad faith made by both accounts in the same discussion without admitting they are the same person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As a final comment to this scenario, yes the lukepowner account was also mine, if that was missed in the above post. Again, all this started when three articles referring to me were all attacked and proposed for deletion within the space of a week.  Again, trying to discuss the effort it does take to start up an internet station was remarked on by AussieLegend as "Internet radio takes no effort to set up" or to a similar vain.  Upon responding to his reply, he again, remarked the same comment, as if wanting to be inflamatory, at which time my first account was banned.  I then restored the article under Whitewater111, and tried explaining again, when I was threatened again.  I felt like I was being intimidated.  I then created Lukepowder in trying to get away from this guy, and made a last ditch effort to restore the radio station article, which was then speedy deleted.  As a result, the WS FM article still sits there with no third party sources, yet my station did have four third party sources, this being the entire issue of this mess.   Did I want this mess to happen?  No, certainly not, but I also didn't appreciated being threatened and banned, merely because someone had a disagreement with me, this is how this entire issue has got out of hand.  As a final note, I'm no longer going to partake in any further wikipedia activity, I have found this entire scenario rather horrible and regretful.   I'm not happy that some other editors may feel insulted, but again, I keep coming back to my analogy.  You set up a business, make it grow, you do well and become successful.  Someone comes in and says, "Wow, that took no effort at all, I wish I had the same amount of money as you".  This attitude is bound to get a neck up or two.  Whitewater111 (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Socking issues aside now that that's been cleared up, you've been told several times that the sources you gave would be able to keep up a bio about yourself, but not about your station.—  Dæ dαlus + Contribs 09:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I rest my case.  Whitewater111 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how you can say that; the sources were about you, not about the station, so I don't see how they could be used for the station.—  Dæ dαlus + Contribs 10:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Daedalus969, your bluntness isn't helping. Perhaps you should request another user to help. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't the one to decide that.—  Dæ dαlus + Contribs 23:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So being overly blunt is supposed to help what? Let someone else handle it and step aside.  You aren't helping. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 00:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have not read my post relaying that you weren't the one to decide if another user was being 'overly blunt' or not, especially when you are involved in the situation; further, your attitude above didn't cause White to address the issue of the un-addressed sock. Maybe you should stop asking(telling) me, because you aren't going to get what you want.—  Dæ  dαlus + Contribs 00:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In case I was not clear above, you weren't helping either.—  Dæ dαlus + Contribs 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe this link was missed, which pretty much talks about the station, and it's programs. http://www.webcitation.org/5mklMMPc9 Whitewater111 (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Either way, there's nothing more to do in this case; all socks have been explained, and the explanations make these socks not a violation of policy. I don't see any reason for them to be blocked, now that the user understands the relevant policies concerning alternate accounts. Thus, this case is now moot, and I thus withdraw it. This is being discussed more on ANI, and the user is being given help, so there is nothing more to do on this page. It should probably be blanked or deleted as courtesy as well, so that none can use this against the user unfairly should something arise.—  Dæ dαlus + Contribs 01:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * May I politely ask permission to have this page deleted. I think I've apologised where appropriate, and feel that I've made the right moves to correct my mistakes.  Thanks  Whitewater111 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - T. Canens (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a procedural note, I've notified all the accounts about this case. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All three are ✅ as being the same. TN X Man  02:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm putting this case on hold, as it's also being discussed on ANI. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been resolved. Nakon  01:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)