Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/buddhidiver/Archive

Report date April 20 2009, 12:09 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by cab (talk)

Massive vote-stacking on Articles for deletion/Pings Xiao. You can even observe the same odd turns of phrase among them (like 3x "More persons want to see, more persons be benefits" ).

Blocking the IP would probably stop this flood ... I am not sure if, the author of Pings Xiao, is also involved, but for the moment let's assume not. cab (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Clear evidence of meatpuppetry, or at best off-wiki canvassing for votes in this AFD. Such votestacking is, of course, doomed to failure, as the closing admin isn't going to miss all those near identical votes, and such shenanigans typically attract a few delete votes, so the net effect of the attempt will be that it is more likely that the article will be deleted. The similar turns of phrase can probably be put down to editors who don't speak English particularly well, and may well be being fed text to add.
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

If the result of the AFD is affected, or these accounts continue in some kind of organised campaign to fight consensus, we can probably do more. If the result isn't affected, and they either go away, or start to edit constructively, the problem will have vanished.

I suggest that the closing admin ignore the votes, and we make no further drama at this stage. Mayalld (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Common sense prevailed. The rentavote crowd didn't sway the AFD, they likely didn't know that they were breaching policy, if one of them might go on to become a productive editor, I reckon Wikipedia will have won. No immediate need to block anybody to protect the pedia. Mayalld (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions