Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilsonWilson1/Archive

25 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Seems like a fairly obvious case of WP:GHBH discussion editing by either a single person or small group of people involved in the management of an org whose article is up for deletion - Articles for deletion/Justice International. WilsonWilson1 and I have been discussing the org (his sole interest here on WP). Yesterday I edited the article itself - consolidating some of the refs that had been added multiple times - after being accused of not having read the sources. That was met with accusations of "falsification" and he received a warning from another editor.

I explained why I had made the edits I did and suggest WW1 had a conflict of interest which was clouding his editing.

Out of nowhere (and within a short time of my edit), Alisonrational appeared - a "neutral" voice in the wilderness - claiming she had read everything and in her neutral opinion, I was "out of line", the org was notable and an admin should close the discussion as such. Her "neutral" opinion at that AFD is her only contribution to WP. Ever.

The IPs are clearly from the same org, though they end their posts by signing off with different names. Though WP:MEAT is obviously possible, I suspect they might all be just the one person. Stalwart 111  22:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Quack quack. Both users are SPAs involved in a deletion debate. They oth repeat the same arguments in favor of keeping the article, they both write in the same style, and both use "regards" after every post. Zaminamina (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * checkuser seems unlikely to achieve anything here. There is absolutely no doubt that this is either meatpuppetry of sockpuppetry (personally I lean toward the former), but checkuser won't really be able to distinguish between the two, given that even if the accounts edit from the same IP address, this could just as easily be down to a shared IP in the work-place as it being a single user. We have procedures and policy in case for dealing with meatpuppetry and COI, those are probably the solution, rather than SPI. Leaving for a second opinion from another clerk, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * - Per above. I don't think CU will tell us any more than what is already known for this sort of situation. Rschen7754 23:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * closing this case. The AfD has been closed as delete, so I don't think there's much more to do here, given that generally we don't block meat accounts in cases such as this. If they recreate the article with the same material, it can be G4'd and salted. SpitfireTally-ho! 12:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)