Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Conway/Archive

28 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The second account with similar names to longstanding climate change editors at Wikipedia (in this case ) that feigns noobishness. May potentially be related to scibaby... or the most recent creator of the Scibaby page whose name I can't recall (and can't view deleted to refresh my memory) but was a sockpuppet of a different user if I recall. New account created shortly after previous account was blocked. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah.... the case I'm recalling involved . See Sockpuppet investigations/Crouch, Swale/Archive for the incident in question.  Crouch, Swale may be the main puppetmaster or not, but regardless, this account is acting very similar to the trolling puppetmaster I've listed this under.  Sailsbystars (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... just what we need, another sockmaster in the CC area. Or perhaps an older one returned?  So many choices unfortunately, but one interesting possibility is  who previously edited the same page and supposedly used periods after section headings (or so I found out when I got accused of being he ).  And sure enough, look at this editors first talk page heading: .  Of course, I thought that was a lousy piece of behavioral evidence, but in this case the POV and experience level seem to match.  Alas, with only tenuous connections, I suppose we shall just have to tolerate a new disruptive editor in the CC area until he/she inevitably does something that leads to an indef..... sigh....  Sailsbystars (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * GR looks plausible-to-likely, from the behaviour. There is also the similarity in sock names: "News Historian" and "Neutrality Doctor" William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is interesting, but could just be a coincidence. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I would like to see some clarification here. If  is the account formerly known as  and  then his choice of a new user name appears to be deliberately trolling and disruptive, as it comes close to mimicking, another active editor on the climate change topics.  After previously mimicking WMC, Conway's talk pages show he was warned multiple times and his responses show he understood the warnings.  Based on this evidence, I would therefore ask for an indefinite block on the News Historian account at this time. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Viriditas's zeal has been excessive in the past, and I suggest he may be mistaken here. See News Historian's talk page. Note this bit by V.: "If you aren't blocked by an administrator due to the evidence presented at the SPI, I will ask for your block at ANI." Somehow this doesn't appear to honor WP:BITE, does it? --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that News Historian began by introducing text with weight and BLP problems, and started edit warring to keep it. The friendly initial welcome carefully avoided biting the newbie, and pointed out the need for more caution in a sympathetic way. News Historian's subsequent actions raised questions if [s]he is indeed a newbie. Of course I appreciate that Pete Tillman has been arguing to keep the problematic article content. . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, I agree you were welcoming and cordial to NH. My comment wasn't directed at you. Now I wonder myself if he's for real.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record please note that "William M. Conway" was the subject of an AN/I discussion, now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive728. Prioryman (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And now we have another new editor,, who created their account on 06:53, 29 November 2011. Since that time, their contribution history shows they are not a new user, and they have dived directly into the climate change dispute without looking back. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Current list


 * 03:31, 24 November 2011 new user account ‎
 * 15:48, 24 November 2011 new user account ‎
 * 04:42, 25 November 2011 new user account ‎
 * 03:38, 27 November 2011 new user account ‎
 * 06:53, 29 November 2011. new user account

Response to clerk note: William Conway was blocked as a username violation, yes, but the violation was an attempt to troll the climate change topics by impersonating highly visibly users and confusing the discussion by taking the opposite POV. After being warned, the user than created "News Historian", another attempt to confuse the discussion by impersonating, an active user on the same topic. This is not "fine". It's a documented pattern of user impersonation, trolling, and disruption. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@Courcelles and NW, could you link some diffs to demonstrate the trolling that you feel is sufficient for a block? Arkon (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Separately, @Courcelles the link to the other account isn't really in dispute, username block only. Arkon (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorsing for clarification. To check Crouch, Swale, can be used. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * NewsHistorian is a bordering on likely match to, which is ✅ as .  Doesn't appear to be Crouch, Swale to me. Courcelles 02:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * for a check against Shadowy Sorcerer. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ –MuZemike 15:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * William Conway was blocked as a username violation, so if he changed names to News Historian, that's fine. Given that the other account is unrelated, I think we're done here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * William M. Conway was technically blocked for a username violation, but to be honest, it really should have been for trolling. I'm actually leaning to a preventive topic ban or block. I think the likelihood of the user being a sockpuppet is too high to just do nothing. NW ( Talk ) 01:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at this again, per NW's request, I'm fairly convinced of the link between News Historian and William M. Conway. I'd have no objection at all to a block on News Historian as a sockpuppet and for trolling at all. Courcelles 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with this evaluation. Calling it -  A l is o n  ❤ 07:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The quacking is indeed strong in this one. Blocked and tagged accordingly. Up to others if the rename-merry-go-round accounts should be tagged, and may the WP:DUCK be with you. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done and done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)