Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ArchieHall

User:ArchieHall

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Poyoyloar (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence

Simply examining the edit history/contributions of these three editors speak for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ArchieHall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dwaltzwriter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MikeWatt

Notice their similar obsessions. Also notice the timing of when those new account were created. Also notice how when both Dwaltzwriter and ArchieHall chat with the same other editors.

Basically what started this was desperation of the puppetmaster born out of the following episode:


 * A request was made to speedy delete 2 unsourced articles: one about an non-notable blogger/arm-chair movie critic writer(MikeWatt) and the other wiki article about his amateur actress wife (Amy Lynn Best), both act in their own self-produced amateur movie productions. Writer Mike Watt writes for a magazine, a few online fanzines and blogs. He is also an amateur actor who stars in their own home movies. Immediately, the author and contributor to both articles user:"ArchieHall" jumps in to defend the articles. This leads to a huge edit war as, coincidentally, another NEW account is created called "user:MikeWatt" and yet another NEW account named Dwaltzwriter is created to jump in to contribute to and defend the article. The timing is clearly suspicious since these accounts only appear when there was a real threat to existence of these articles. The fact that a NEW "Dwaltzwriter" account was created the day of this edit war to argue against editors who want the article deleted is highly suspicious. "Dwaltzwriter" simply jumps in this argument, ready to debate against the other editors. The timing of "Dwaltzwriter's" creation and the fact that he/she is ready to jump into this argument can not be a coincidence. Add to that that Dwaltzwriter has not attempted to edit any other article other than the articles that ArchieHall created/contributed to.


 * "Dwaltzwriter" and "ArchieHall" both pretend to be different people defending the article. Notice how ArchieHall quickly jumps in to defend Dwaltzwriter almost mere hours after user:Dwaltzwriter created his account. Clearly they are the same person since their contribution history is the same. He even "agrees" with his phony meatpuppet/sockpuppet account in a way meant to sound like they are 2 different people. If not the same person, then still friends agreeing to defend each other's agenda in a way to make their argument look legitimate.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Lynn_Best


 * The MikeWatt account also quickly jumps back and forth between both the Amy Lynn Best article and the MikeWatt article much like ArchieHall does.


 * The MikeWatt account is almost an omission that ArchieHall is probably Mike Watt himself, which means that ArchieHall (aka MikeWatt) created his own Wiki fanpage to promote his own film/writing career. In either case, ArchieHall is clearly pretending to NOT be MikeWatt since he speaks of MikeWatt in the 3rd person. But even if this were true, then the creation of MikeWatt account at the same time of the edit war suggests that friends of MikeWatt are being asked to jump in to defend the article which is still a meatpuppet violation. The "ArchieHall" account also accuses me of being a personal enemy of MikeWatt which is odd since if this were true, then how would ArchieHall know this unless he were MikeWatt or unless he was a close friend of MikeWatt??? His personal interest in attacking me so quickly, without evidence to back up this claim, seems to suggest that I threatened his agenda of Meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry since he couldn't resist but to make this a personal conflict about the person he is supposed to writing about objectively. In other words, if "ArchieHall" really is just a random fan of writer MikeWatt, and not MikeWatt himself, nor MikeWatt's close friend, then he shouldn't be so knowledgable/obsessed about MikeWatt's personal vendettas/enemies since he seems to endlessly complain about them with other editors while still claiming not to be MikeWatt or a close friend.Poyoyloar (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I hope that I am wrong. I really hope that a Wiki user would not abuse wikipedia this way. Personally, I'd like to see if the process clears this user. But if not, then I'm in support of the system created against this sort of thing.Poyoyloar (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Obvious sock puppets, working together, accounts created at same time when dispute flares up, contribution history shared.Tromatical (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This nomination was incomplete; I have listed it on the main page at WP:SSP and fixed the broken headers. -- Nsevs •  Talk  11:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So since all three accounts share (a) timing and (b) the same obsessions and (c) the same agenda: seems to clearly imply that sockpuppetry is being used to promote an non-notable article which was already deleted once because of non-notability.Poyoyloar (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

I refuse to listen to my name be dragged through the mud in this fashion. I have been a film critic for over ten years and am allowed my opinion on whomever I choose. To say that I am involved in this sockpuppetry, a term that I am unfamiliar with, is juvenile at best. The evidence you give is nothing more than circumstantial with no hard facts to prove otherwise. I eagerly await this process that will show conclusively that I am Dwaltzwriter and nothing more. Dwaltzwriter (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal

I highly doubt that for an article this trivial that you just happened to create your account without being prompted. And your behavior/obsessions seem to suggest, in conjunction with the other sockpuppets created, that there is an attempt to dupe wiki for the purpose of POV agenda. As an amusing side note: Even Mike Watt himself, on his homepage, is calling on his friends to create accounts to defend the existence of the Mike Watt homepage, where all the meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry is taking place. Yes, the timing of when you created the account is suspicious indeed.Poyoyloar (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Response
 * Can you provide a link/diff to support that? Nsevs  •  Talk  22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course,

http:// b l o g. m y s p a c e.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=12633280&blogID=377911809

Of course he still wants us to think he's 2 different people, so he lays it on thick. But he's just covering his tracks.

But of particular interest is the following quote from MikeWatt/ArchieHall's blog, whereby he all but confirms that he is soliciting meatpuppetry from this friends.

The title of the blog is: HELP NEEDED

"This week, [an editor] has been lobbying to get my and Amy's Wikipedia entries removed... As of five minutes ago, it's still up there. However, if everyone could do me the favor and check in on it every now and then and make sure MK isn't vandalizing it or destroying it further. If you want to, feel free to re-edit, add, subtract, I don't care..."

Clearly, an intent to game wiki.

Poyoyloar (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My name is Douglas Alan Waltz. I have been a film critic for years. Google it and you'll see. I live in Michigan, have for all of my life. I can't understand why these entries would be removed for perfromers who have appeared in films that are carried on sites like Amazon as well as brick and mortar stores like Best Buy where you can buy their product. These are legitimate actresses and actors that have as deserving a place on the wiki as any other performer. I believe taht Poyoyloar has an agenda that he is keeping from wikipedia that goes beyond a normal request for deletion into something more personal. Especially when he paraphrases the blog above without posting the entire blog? Why do that? Are there things further down on the blog that will reveal Poyoyloar's agenda? I think so having gone and read the blog that was linked here. This entire situation is a sham and needs to be negated immediately. And Poyoyloar? NEVER accuse me of being a sockpuppet again. Are we clear?Dwaltzwriter (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Response

Dwaltzwriter, you really ought to tone down the aggression in your posts. Poyoyloar has every right to make substantiated accusations even if they turn out to be false. Poyoyloar, is there any reason you haven't actually provided a link to the blog? I've tried cut-and-pasting the address to my server but I can't find the blog you're referring to. By the way, Dwaltzwriter, nobody has an obligation to google you or provide anything other than circumstantial evidence. These cases are decided on the basis of behaviour, it says so on Sockpuppetry.GSTQ (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment


 * I've already informed Dwaltzwriter of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL . As for the URL, you need to remove the spaces that have been inserted: http://blog.m yspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=12633280&blogID=377911809 -- Nsevs  •  Talk  18:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, since Poyoyloar has given nothing substantial in any of his arguements I think I'll go ahead and keep my current level of aggression. When it's all over and the smoke has cleared then I'll think about lowering my aggression. Until then, I'm who I am. Oh, and that's Douglas Waltz, not Mike Watt as Poyoyloar has insisted on calling me for this entire thing.Dwaltzwriter (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to comment
 * Ah, Mike, so now you are threatening me with aggression. Do you think that will help your case around here? But I will happily report this NEW violation. Your intent to use aggression to get your own way certainly IS substantial. You are making your own case against yourself.Have a nice day.Poyoyloar (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I've read the blog, and Poyoyloar's extract has quite a different impact from reading the whole blog, which ought to be read in its entirety. Reading the whole blog suggests that there is someone who is apparently not aware of Wikipedia policies about soliciting support from friends and associates to support a particular proposition, instead of someone who calculatedly defies the policy. And it shows the solicitation is incidental to a situation occurring principally outside Wikipedia. I think the evidence shows pretty clearly that Dwaltzwriter and MikeWatt are meatpuppets. Dwaltzwriter, your inability or refusal to educate yourself about the difference between sockpuppets and meatpuppets and then understand that Wikipedia policy treats them in exactly the same way does not buy you an exemption from the rule. And nothing buys you an exemption from the rule about being civil (yes, even if Poyoyloar is not being civil).GSTQ (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment

At the risk of attracting Poyoylar's further attention, I'm going to respond here. First, to GSTQ and Nsevs  I'd like to extend my sincere thanks for your attention and consideration in this matter. And my apologies as well. As GSTQ pointed out, I absolutely did not realize that my call for assistance with my personal blog was a violation of Wikipedia policies. I was responding to an attack against myself and my wife that has been leveled against us in the past by the same individual calling himself Poyoylar, Tromatical and Fearedhallmonitor. My apologies further if my actions caused needless headaches for the Wikipedia staff and moderators. Douglas Waltz and Archie Hall are both associates of mine. I cannot take responsibilities for their actions, but I do thank them, regardless, for trying to assist friends and colleagues in what was seen as an external attack. If Poyoylar's goal is to have these entries deleted, and the deletion will end this nonsense, then by all means delete them as I'm sure everyone -- well, perhaps not everyone -- has better things to do with their time. Whether or not Amy and I have done enough in our careers to be 'notable' is certainly up for debate, and I doubt that's a debate that will be settled here or to Poyoylar's liking .(If his assertations that Fangoria and Film Threat are also not notable, it might be considered that those entries be removed as well, to further placate him. Oh, and please don't mistake that possibly facetious remark as a personal attack, despite how personal this entire thing has become.) Finally, just to repeat, thank you both, GSTQ and Nsevs for your time and assistance. MikeWatt (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Final Weigh-in


 * Well, that constitutes a confession to meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. That pretty much settles that.


 * As for the other speculative nonsense that I am the one attacking him and his wife elsewhere, that is completely UNTRUE. Unless he has some hard proof otherwise, then it's circumstantial speculation and paranoia.Poyoyloar (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As it says in WP:MEAT, the term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care. It seems that MikeWatt may have acted in a way that can be seen as recruiting meatpuppets, inadvertantly including Dwaltzwriter and ArchieHall in this. However, we should all remember WP:AGF. There doesn't seem to have been a deliberate attempt to subvert Wikipedia policies and processes in the way that normally justifies the use of the term meatpuppetry. MikeWatt's attention has been drawn to WP:MEAT, and he has explained his actions. Future action, if any, should be based on future behavior. If these users stay around for a while and make good edits, their records from now on will speak for themselves.
 * Comment

If there are pages that should be deleted, or which people think should be deleted, the proper processes should be followed to obtain concensus on that. Criteria for notability are reasonably objective, and it should be possible to resolve disputes in the normal AfD way. The best way to defend an article from suggestions of lack of notability is to expand it with good references to reliable secondary sources that clearly establish notability according to the set criteria in WP:NOTE. Mooncow (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mooncow, thanks very much. I appreciate your time and input in this matter. MikeWatt (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Mooncow. And to be clear. Nobody wants to see Mike Watt's account, or his other "meatpuppet" accounts banned if they are indeed unintentional. We just want him to stop using this method of editing to support his auto-biographic wiki article that is already sorely lacking in so many other areas, specifically in the area of notability. Thx for your time.Poyoyloar (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

RFCU filed to sort this and the Poyoyloar SSP case out. They're quite intertwined. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See Requests for checkuser/Case/Poyoyloar, ArchieHall and Mikewatz are socks, Dwaltzwriter isn't, sock indef'd, ArchieHall blocked one week. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)