Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whoismarty/Archive

Evidence submitted by Cirt

 * 1) *Only edits are to BLP article Mark Rathbun
 * 2) *Vandalizes article, changing the subject's personal website to instead link to attack site
 * 3) *Does the same a 2nd time, also adding unreferenced negative info to the BLP
 * 4) *Only edits are to BLP article Mark Rathbun
 * 5) *Disruption at the BLP article, adding back same info that was added by the above account:, , , ,
 * 6) *Same ISP, used to vandalize the article
 * 1) *Disruption at the BLP article, adding back same info that was added by the above account:, , , ,
 * 2) *Same ISP, used to vandalize the article
 * 1) *Same ISP, used to vandalize the article

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Hi. I am trying to get more involved with helping out and have a question about this claim (I am putting aside the issue of vandalism vs. differing points of view on the content. I just want to understand this process). Reading WP:Sock, it says:

''The default position on Wikipedia is that each editor should have one account only. This policy explains when alternate accounts may and may not be used. When an alternate account is used in violation of this policy, it is known as a sock puppet.''

Looking at the user contributions, I see edits under Whoismarty at about 22:48 on 27-Oct, followed by anon edits from  68.96.146.75 starting about an hour later which continue until 00:21 on 28-Oct, and then one anon edit from 68.5.200.107 30 minutes later. Even if this is (as I suspect) one user, I do not get how this is a sockpuppet. After the first set of edits, could the user have re-booted and not logged in when making the second set of edits, and then have gone to the library or coffee shop for the last edit? If so, and if this constitutes being a sockpuppet, then does that mean that once one makes logged-in edits, any anon edits after that constitute sockpuppetry?  I'm curious as to what others think.  --Igoldste (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The user gave no indication it was the same individual. Add in the history of socking on the topic, in addition to the problems laid out at WP:ARBSCI, and it is worth checkusers looking into it. Cirt (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Cirt (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see also the checkuser case page Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. And also the ArbCom cases Requests for arbitration/COFS, and Requests for arbitration/Scientology.
 * With prior history of large amount of socking ongoing on this topic of Scientology, it's a good idea to see if there are other sock accounts related to above. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
. GrooveDog &bull; i'm groovy. 12:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * is him, the other isn't. Brandon (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)