Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamWater/Archive

Evidence submitted by Elizium23
User User:WilliamWater and User:Quigley each contain claims that he is the same user, and both have been editing the same kinds of articles. WilliamWater is blocked indefinitely with a comment indicating the other two socks. Quigley is still actively editing, apparently evading the block. Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

This was already resolved before, hence why I have the message disclosing my past account on the page. YellowMonkey blocked this and my past accounts once before, but I actually had not violated sockpuppet policy as this is a new account that didn't continue any active disputes or discussions from the past. That is why I am unblocked. Also, Splittist should not be listed as a separate account here, since this account is Splittist, renamed. Maybe this would be a good time to unblock WilliamWater and Lolnuts (I don't know who that is, it has no edits and apparently YM came up with that in a checkuser?) so that no misguided accusations like this can come up again. A question for the editor who brought up this SPI: what is your motivation, since neither of the accounts that you brought up have edited in a long time since I created this one? Quigley (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quigley, please keep WP:AGF in mind. I doubt that there's a hidden motive or conspiracy. Judging from Special:Contributions/Elizium23, Elizium23 is simply an editor involved in combating vandalism and cleaning up articles. Elizium23 doesn't revise China-related articles, so I doubt that he or she's doing it because he or she disputes your views. Elizium23 probably see this solely as a block evasion case (and he or she didn't get the facts right, as you've stated). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No one likes being called a puppeteer unfairly, so I can understand Quigley's anger. That being said, I think that the ideal solution here would be to indef block the Splittist account, as it is the only former account of Quigley's that is not indef blocked, and turn Splittist and Q's other old accounts into soft redirects with the message "This is an abandoned alternate account of user:Quigley, and can no longer be used. Quigley was deemed innocent of wrongdoing at Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamWater ." Everyone's happy. Sven Manguard  Talk  02:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea, because the only reason the Splittist account has any edits at all (all of Splittist's former edits were attributed to Quigley when the name move was done) was because of SUL, and Splittist still being able to edit after the name change. Before I unified this account, I was logged in on Quigley on en.wiki but still on Splittist on Wikimedia Commons. Sometimes when I went onto en.wiki after having been onto commons, I became mistakenly logged onto Splittist on en.wiki, as you can see by the two edits made on Splittist. One of them was to add a picture to an article, and another was to continue a threaded discussion that I started on Quigley (but I quickly replaced the signature once I realized my mistake); even so, there it was exceedingly clear that the accounts were the same person. Quigley (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Looking at Quigley's block log, it does appear there was some confusion about multiple accounts. It also appears that Splittist was renamed to Quigley. I don't see any evidence of current alternate account abuse, as two of the accounts are blocked and Splittist hasn't edited in some time. TN X Man 14:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

– As one can plainly see, Splittist was renamed to Quigley, Quigley admits to have used WilliamWater in the past, and the other sock is. There is nothing here that CheckUser can do. The one question that remains is whether or not WP:CLEANSTART was being taken advantage of; I will leave that for others to discuss and decide. –MuZemike 03:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how cleanstart could have been seen to be taken advantage of, and I would not like to keep this question ambiguous. WilliamWater and its edits were cautious, bland, and never sanctioned. According to one (and my original) interpretation of cleanstart, I would not need to disclose WW. Nevertheless, after YM's first hasty block of Quigley, in the interest of transparency and assuaging suspicions, I have disclosed WW for anybody who wants to "scrutinize", and that is fully what that policy asks. What more can I do at this point? Quigley (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Close case. There's nothing more that could be done here. Quigley has done more than being asked in WP:CLEANSTART. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)