Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wyandanch/Archive

04 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''


 * Sockmaster User:Wyandanch is a Single purpose account that has only edited Mark M. Spradley and Mark Merritt Spradley.
 * Sock User:Wyandanch68 has only edited Mark M. Spradley JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Signs of sock puppetry states that signs of SP include Signs_of_sock_puppetry (see editor's comments in SPI) and Signs_of_sock_puppetry (out of the blue, two accounts create and then edit Mark_M._Spradley, with references that on the surface provide WP:RS but once investigated largely do not (see Talk:Mark_M._Spradley) also, espouse in-depth justification of SP behavior based on WP policy), Signs_of_sock_puppetry, and Signs_of_sock_puppetry.
 * More importantly, the comments from one account at Sockpuppet_investigations/Wyandanch seem to confirm that these are edits coming from the same place, and the same user. The comments make the point that no policy violation is being made in doing so (along with some angry words). The clerk points out that users don't have carte blanche to use multiple accounts, and that they should be linked in some way - and they are not. Yet, per WP:SOCK, "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" include "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts". JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I take exception to the accusation of "sockpuppetery for the following reasons; the accuser stated that the two registered users have only collaborated on one article. Welcome to the world of Wikipedia. Is there a rule against getting started with a project that you're familar with? The answer is no. Similarily, The rules applying to a sockpuppet investigation do not prevent two friends from brainstorming over their holiday and joining the Wikipedia extended family. We expect to further develop the article and comment and edited additional articles over time, as well as, from different IP adresses. Let's look at the elements of the rules governing sockpuppetry one by one:

3)Whilst merely owning multiple accounts is permitted on the English Wikipedia, misuse of two or more accounts by the one individual—"abusive sock puppetry"—is in violation of the project's communal norms. There are two accounts and two registered users entering the world of Wikipedia one article at a time.

Editors who are filing an SPI request ought to be fully familiar with Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy since complex sock puppetry cases occur regularly.

1)A sockpuppet inquiry case may only be opened if there is evidence or good cause to suspect that there has been abuse of multiple accounts, or IPs." Two accounts exist with two different registered users. 2)The English Wikipedia's policy on sock puppetry holds that, whilst merely owning multiple accounts or IPs is acceptable, utilising them in a disruptive, misleading, or unhelpful manner is not. Is the article, disruptive, misleading, or being used in an unhelpful manner? The answer is no. While the value of the information presented may have a narrow audience it in fact exspands the readership.As a rule of thumb, if you suspect the use of multiple accounts or IPs in a manner that is affecting the encyclopedia, an investigation ought to be filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyandanch68 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Wyandanch, editors don't just have carte blanche to use multiple accounts. If you do have multiple accounts, you're really supposed to make notification of it in some way, either by a note on talk pages or something else. To be honest this does seem like sockpuppetry, both in terms of name and content. If you two are friends or whatever, you certainly picked exceedingly similar usernames. The one thing I'm not seeing, though, is malicious intent per se. Tone above aside, the accounts aren't edit warring on Mark M. Spradley. This is clearly meatpuppetry, though, and the editors seem well informed enough (?) to know that that sort of behavior is frowned upon. Still, I'm curious what other clerks think of this. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Block the sock at least. Stern warning to the main account if not block. Wikilawyering... NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My take on this is intersting, because in one wasy this looks more like socking with the usernames, and this log entry has me concered:
 * (cur | prev) 10:00, 4 January 2011 Wyandanch  (t | c) m (0) (moved Mark Merritt Spradley to Mark M. Spradley: Housekeeping) (×)
 * (cur | prev) 09:45, 4 January 2011 Wyandanch68  (t | c) (-59) (fact check) (×)
 * (cur | prev) 08:54, 4 January 2011 Wyandanch  (t | c) (-5) (edit) (×)
 * (cur | prev) 11:18, 2 January 2011 Wyandanch68  (t | c) (+171) (→External links:  add) (×)

and even looking into it more there are more Copyedits and spell checks by these users, almost like one contributor to another approval with the edit times being so close. This seems like a a very WP:MEAT and possibliy: Deceptively seeking positions of community trust (for copyedit/"approving" and possibly Avoiding scrutiny because of editing same time same place 2 diff people. A block is in order of some sort, probally block meat per above policies, and warn main account. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Following the other two clerks' advice, I've blocked the sockpuppet. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)