Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ghetsmith

User:Ghetsmith

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer

(admitted on ) (already blocked) only made edits on 5 July 2007
 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

OhanaUnited   Talk page   06:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jbntj assessed environment as stub, then added climate change. I spotted the error that he assessed the article Fossil fuel power plant as stub (even though that article is long and has references), so I corrected it back to B-class. I also removed climate change template. 1 day later, Ghetsmith came and add back the climate change template and reassess the article back to stub class. 
 * Evidence

In Ghetsmith's contribution page and Jbntj's page, both are involved mainly on articles and talk pages related to energy, renewable & conventional energy resources. Another editor, mbeychok, left me a message on my talk page questioning the coincidental edits the 2 users made. Mbeychok suspects that they are using Wikipedia articles as propaganda for environmental issues.

An interesting note is that Ghetsmith's editing stopped after July 9 and resumed on August 7. During this period, Jbntj edits between July 12 and August 6. It is not a concrete evidence, but this is a hint that Ghetsmith used Jbntj in mid/late July.

There is circumstantial evidence of sock puppetry, but no "smoking gun" that I can see. The incident cited above, where the two users made the same controversial edit regarding article assessment, seems to be the only blatant violation of the user account policy.
 * Comments

I think the correct response is to block Jbntj, the newer of the two accounts (and the currently inactive one), and to advise Ghetsmith that sock puppetry is a Bad Thing. Shalom Hello 08:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely apologise if any of my edits were viewed as sockpuppetry. Also I would like to point out that using multiple accounts is allowed under wikipedia policy but I will promise to avoid sockpuppetry in the future. Especially when editing controversial topics I will try to justify my edits to reach a consensus on the talk page first. Regarding the issue of alternative/renewable energy: the unfortunate truth is that present scientific knowledge tells us that none of the resources available are truely renewable. Solar power is not completely renewable, which means that wind, hydro, wave, tide, biomass, (which depend on solar) aren't either. Geothermal resources are large but exhaustable over thousands of years. Also the word energy source is misleading. According to conservation of energy, energy is neither created nor destroyed, it just changes form. Energy conversion would be more appropriate. Also it might be a good idea to merge renewable energy with energy development since both articles discuss the same thing. Regarding environmental issues, renewable energy tends to be more clean than fossil fuels. Nevertheless, estimates on cleanliness of a given technology may vary widely based on the assumptions made. By stating nuclear as renewable, I am assuming there will be no major nuclear meltdowns, terrorist attacks, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. I enjoy writing wikipedia and will try to adhere to {npov} as much as possible. Sincerely,Ghetsmith 07:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Regarding the climate change tag on the fossil fuel power plant, it clearly states here in the article that fossil fuel power plants are directly responsible for climate change and global warming.


 * I'm an environmental science student so I am fully aware of the issues. The main issue here is NOT about what you are editing in, but what you are editing WITH. You are using 5 suspected sock puppets, which are more than necessary for legitimate uses of multiple accounts. In my opinion, your edits are considered to meet one of the forbidden uses of sock puppets. Even if you want to discuss about the edits, you haven't answered why you kept changing environment class despite the fact that I left a message on Jbntj's talk page more than a week ago. You continue to edit, ignoring my message. This consitutues disruptive editing, and is a blockable offense.  OhanaUnited    Talk page   15:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * His response was to blank the user page and add that he also used Power2708 for edits. 199.125.109.108 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. Block them all as recent sockpuppets and do a checkuser to find out what username they have been using. 199.125.109.58 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * As Ghetsmith points out, WP policy doesn't prohibit the use of multiple accounts, and this case doesn't demonstrate that the sockpuppet accounts have been used to violate policy. In addition, most of the accounts haven't edited recently, so there's not an urgent need to take any action. Nevertheless, I would advise Ghetsmith to limit himself to the use of a single account in the future, as editors tend to distrust users with multiple accounts. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)