Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Who Watches/Archive

Report date February 24 2009, 22:32 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by RxS (talk)

was blocked indef on Jan 2:, started editing on Jan 3 and signs his name WW ([]). As you can see from his contribs, he's not here to contribute. See this edit for insight to his attitude []. I have no idea what his back story is. Apparently has another accout "I refuse to use my main account and be subjected to the risk of phone calls and emails regarding this issue" but I don't know what it is. RxS (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that the link's been confirmed, what's the next step. Seems like a block is in order, but I've never been through this process (normally the account would be blocked). He called me a corrupt Nazi so I suppose I'm too involved to make the block 'eh? Also, I'm assuming that there are no other accounts and his reference to one is either not true or being run from another IP address? Thanks! RxS (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The CU results have indeed not unearthed any underlying master account, so the usual reaction of a 31 hour block against that account is gone. However, as WhoWatches was indef blocked, an indef on his block evading sock is entirely appropriate. Given that it would appear that his contention is that ALL admins are corrupt Nazis, it could be argued that all admins are involved. I'm not an admin myself, so I can't issue the block. I will try to find an admin! Mayalld (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Support: I've never contributed to one of these before so I'd appreciate anyone moving this comment to the right place, or changing my "Support" !vote to the appropriate lingo. QuisCustodio has been using these accounts to make personal attacks with out fear of reprisal (calling other editors "Nazis" constitutes as a PA right?) and attempting to canvass AdminReview supporters into current debates, under the fuzzy pretence of trying to help the process move forward. He's also a bit of a nuisance, Tony had to delete one of his threads the other day. Ryan 4314   (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * SPI doesn't even do !voting. Investigating sockpuppets isn't about consensus, but about a factual asessment of evidence. Mayalld (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thankyou, this can just be taken as evidence of disruptive behaviour, as I imagine WhoWatches defence will be; "I'm not causing any disruption". Ryan 4314   (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Socking to evade a block is disruptive behaviour! Mayalld (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OIC, my apologies, after watching what happened with the WhoWatches account, I thought the matter was some how "up for discussion" ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC) (self endorsed by clerk). Whilst the new account is quacking, and engaging in the same disruption as the blocked account, the user has claimed to edit from another account, and is apparently using a sock to edit policy pages, contrary to Arbcom decision. CU endorsed to root out the true master account. Mayalld (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

formatted to switch master and sock Mayalld (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is likely that the following two accounts are related:
 * Conclusions

-- Avi (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the likely accounts blocked indef. -- Kanonkas : Talk  19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)