Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Witizen/Archive

Report date July 15 2009, 18:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Yopie

Both edited mainly article Wirtland (micronation), and Rich church mouse began editing after problems with this article begans. Of course, both have same ideas about Wirtland.

Article Wirtland (micronation) is about less known micronation, on the edge of notability, and Witizen is from PR department of this micronation. After others editors began questioning about notability of this micronation, and try improve article, Rich church mouse began supporting Witizen. Both edited mainly article Wirtland (micronation) with no other interest (for example about other micronations, geography etc.).

This report was discussed with other editors here and here.

Both are connected for editing in nearly same time, as seen here[].

As suggested by this Guidance, I have already contacted Arbiters with my full explanation. Therefore further "investigation" became pointless. However, an interesting case of Orwellian behaviour. Rich church mouse (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Rich Church Mouse
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

From my letter to Arbiters: "Yes, I share a PC with Witizen, is that a problem? But I am expressing my own opinion. As suggested by Wiki rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims), I am openly reporting this to you as Arbiters. If I am violating any Wikipedia rules, I think more experienced users should guide me, instead of  tagging and undoing my edits to death" Rich church mouse (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Rich Church Mouse

From my message to Greg Tyler: "I can save your time for further investigations and tell I share computer with Witizen. Maybe you need more detail about our relationship? No problem, I can tell. I deleted his remark, because I do not want any further fighting. But I agree that editors only talk about formal rules, investigate ridiculous "crimes", but do nothing to improve article." Rich church mouse (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Rich Church Mouse


 * Comments by other users
 * Both users have a unique way of signing their posts: they both sign them like this: " ~username ". In other words, it appears they are adding their username ("wirtland", "rich church mouse") exactly after their four tildes on a consistent basis. This is a small thing, but it is a unique quirk that leads towards some level of puppetry. Here are samples of the behavior- one very recent, one at the beginning of their editing to prove it isn't a meme from seeing another on Wikipedia.
 * Rich church mouse: first example of behavior, 3 July 2009, recent example, 15 July 2009
 * Wirtizen: first example of behavior, 1 July 2009, recent example, 15 July 2009
 * This is, at best, circumstantial. But combined with the evidence of SPI and sockpuppet/meatpuppet talk page support, it's another indicator. tedder (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is some fairly substantial evidence here, where I suggest that Witizen might be preparing to "rally support" and Rich church mouse replies to say "I...don't rally support", as if he were speaking as Witizen. He then signs his post as mentioned above but trails "Witizen" rather than "Rich church mouse". I would say that signing your post as another user, particularly in this situation, is a pretty obvious hint that you may be one and the same.
 * Rich church mouse then undid his revision edit. I'd also like to say that, before this event occurred, I hadn't really suspected a link between the editors. I was willing to believe they could be sockpuppets, but wouldn't have started the investigation myself. Now, however, I would strongly suggest sockpuppetry. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 11:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been involved with the Wirtland (micronation) article since the copyright issue was raised at the end of June. I had concerns about the possible sockpuppetry of these editors pretty much since Rich church mouse appeared on the scene, largely due to the timing, nature (always supporting Witizen's view) and language used (which seemed similar).  However I had not spotted the signature similarity so did not find the evedience compelling enough to raise the issue - if I had noticed the signature similarity I'd have raised the issue myself.  Given that this article still doesn't appear completely stable (especially when talk page discussions are taken into account) I feel it would be helpful to get to the bottom of this. Dpmuk (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

Blocked both as obvious socks. ( X! ·  talk )  · @906  · 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)