Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Feats-O-Strength (2nd)

User:Feats-O-Strength (2nd)

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence

was blocked a year or so ago as an obvious sock of Feats-O-Strength after the first SSP, who correspondingly was blocked for a week. Yesterday I declined DTH's second unblock request and, since it was obvious he was trolling, protected the page.

Well, who shows up on my talk page this morning but Feats-O-Strength, complaining about my unblock decline. Then this fellow seconds him. The two of them then have a nice little back-and-forth on PP's talk page, where both parties show the same sort of affected colloquial informality that also characterized Deck the Hallz. (Note the shared interest in Festivus, which is reflected in their editorial histories:, and  for PP, and  for Feats)

Their contribution histories reveal that PP was created a little over a year ago, during a lull in Feats's editing. The former account has mainly been used for sporadic vandalism reverts, but one of the few edits that isn't, outside of those to Festivus, suggests a similar appetite for trolling.

Huh. So you think I'm a sockpuppet now. I don't mind saying here, I'm a bit insulted. Seems to me that anyone who agrees with Feats and Deck the Hallz here is accused of sockpuppeting. But then there is that evidence you got there, and while I gotta commend you for taking the time to gather it all, I also gotta tell you, you wasted your time. Firstly, sure I seconded Feats. I read his message on that talk page, looked at this Deck the Hallz, and then made what I thought to be a reasonable comment in support of Feats's statement. See, me, I'm not the accusing type except with irrefutable evidence. Deck the Hallz's story seemed possible, to me at least. Secondly, there was that back-and-forth on me talk page. And why not? Why shouldn't two users communicate, and discover they got stuff in common? Like Festivus and bacon? Now, I'm not saying, nor did I ever, that Pule was a notable article. Thirdly, so I joined when Feats wasn't too active. How many users here have joined when there was a lull in some other unsavory user's editing? Probably more than I'd care to count. In other words, a coincidence. And fourthly... Well, have you ever tried putting cinnamon on pizza? Most folks I know think it'd taste disgusting without even trying it, but it actually tastes great. I thought I were doing a nice service by pointing that out, you know, so folks won't miss out. I gotta admit, though, you put a lot of effort into collecting all that evidence you just gave. I almost hate to make it kinda worthless, you know? Feels almost like destroying someone's hard work. But it is in the interest of justice and fairness, so it's worth it in the end, am I right? Sorry you folks wasted your time on this. Don't worry, I can completely understand such a mistake. Heck, after reading that evidence, I almost felt guilty myself! Porkman Pork (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Oh, oh, this is an outrage. It's like you're accusing anyone who agrees with me of being a sockpuppet!  But I suppose this may be done justly and fairly if I stay calm...  Let's see here...  First off, there's the item of Deck the Hallz's second unblock request, which was frivolously declined, AND his talk page protected, something about nonsense and abuse of the appeal system?  Well, why shouldn't he appeal his block again?  It's been what, a year now?  How else was he supposed to appeal his block?  How else is he ever gonna get unblocked?  And protecting his talk page, I think that's going a tad too far, don't you?  And then Pork very graciously backed me up on Daniel Case's talk page.  So what of it?  He defends me, we get to talking, we become friends.  Isn't that a GOOD thing?  As opposed to evidence of sockpuppetry?  Honestly, haven't any of you had friendly chats with other users which led to friendship?  And after the whole ordeal with Deck the Hallz, I took a break from Wikipedia.  How was I to know that Pork would sign up in my absence?  And as for the pizza...  Trolling?  That's a stretch, isn't it?  I gotta try that, though... Cinnamon on pizza...  Never tried it myself...  Yet.  Anyway, in conclusion, i really think the majority of evidence presented here is kinda nitpicky, and circumstantial at best.  I find these accusations to be reprehensible, as I do Deck the Hallz's block, repeated denied appeals, and talk page protection.  With that said, I trust that you Wikipedians will do what's right.  Of course, last time I did that, I was blocked for a week and Deck the Hallz indefinitely...  Huh (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

While it is possible that these two accounts are operated by the same person, they are not sockpuppets unless they are used for "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." Is there any evidence that these accounts have been used for that purpose? —BradV 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know about you but I consider the use of sock puppets to express disagreement with an administrative action to be disruptive harassment. Is it really that different from stacking a vote ("Sock puppets might be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists.")? Note, too, that I believe these puppets are being used to argue against my refusal to unblock another sock blocked indef over a year ago. We do not unblock sock accounts, period. To use another sock to complain about the first sock's block is, IMO, an attempt to evade the first one's block. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also remember that editors with alternative accounts are supposed to disclose this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose this does reek of sockpuppetry doesn't it? I guess what confused me is that User:Feats-O-Strength is not blocked so the second account was not an evasion of a block. But if a checkuser confirms that they are the same person the accounts should both be blocked - indefinitely this time. —BradV  05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for a week last year for socking with Deck the Hallz, so there's a precedent here. I didn't block him now because I thought it was pointless to start an SSP and notify someone that the accusation has been made when you've then blocked them from responding. I will put the CU through later today. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The request has been filed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser came back positive. All accounts blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions