Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nationmaster

User:Nationmaster

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Mayalld (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

Tag teaming in a vandalism spree at Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois
 * Evidence


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px;background-color:#ffd8d8" width="80%"


 * 
 * Comments
 * This appears to be a much clearer violation of Wikipedia vandalism policies than WP:SOCK. WP:SOCK states "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden."  The evidence of sockpuppetry is merely circumstantial.  The evidence of vandalism is clear and unmistakable.

Nationmaster and Invasivepants are the only users of the four listed who remain unblocked. All of their edits seem to be vandalism. It would be better evaluate their behavior on vandalism, which is clear cut, rather than try to deduct whether or not they are the same person. Due to the esoteric nature of the article vandalised, I suspect that the article was discussed in a school history class.

Mayalld, have you considered WP:AIV? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that M.EB has made some very good points above, and I agree that this report is based more on vandalism rather than "who owns who" - I don't believe at this moment in time, we can appropriately conclude that Invasivepants is Nationmaster. As M.EB points out, it could have been something that was in class that day, and the only need for a block would be warranted on a vandalism block only. ButtCommandr has already been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, and so we exclude him from the results of this report immediately. I appreciate Mayalld's concerns and these edits even lead to a protection of the page in question, but I don't see any reason for Nationmaster wanting to create another account (i.e. Invasivepants) because there have been no blocks, and few warnings. At this moment in time I feel it would be best to see what happens, and if they return in these capacities - just report them to AIV and quote this SSP case - it, in combination with the final warnings I have issued, would surely lead to a block of some period. Rudget . 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct that this report originated in vandalism. At the time, there was a lot of activity from all the users making the same edits, and it looked as if there was an intent to start a sock farm to allow more extensive vandalism whilst evading a block by keeping all accounts under the block radar. It would appear that once it became clear that the game was up, he got bored, so I don't see any further action as necessary on this case. If the accounts start up again, we can deal with it from there. Mayalld (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Case closed. No further action at this time. Conclusion appears to be supported by Mayalld (submitter of report), Rudget and Mrs. Easter Bunny. Nobody not in support of conclusion. Archtransit (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * }


 * Case to be re-opened, reviewed and re-closed. Archtransit has been desysopped as an sockmaster, with an occasional sideline in unblocking socks, himself.


 * Important - in this case, all comments by third parties, as well as the conclusion should be reappraised and the case reassessed from scratch. (There is evidence examined by Arbcom that suggests at least one of the comments made to it was influenced by Archtransit, and therefore all comments should be set aside in re-evaluating the case.) FT2 (Talk 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

✅ by checkuser;, , and  are the same person. The IP is probably ❌. Thatcher 00:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All accounts (except the IP) blocked for sockpuppetry per CheckUser evidence. Mr.  Z- man  01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)