Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates

User:Snocrates

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

barneca (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This report concerns a user currently undergoing an RfA: Requests for adminship/Snocrates.
 * Evidence

Snocrates is a very prolific editor in Categories, particularly WP:CFD, categories related to the Mormon church, and new categories patrolling (see contribs: for typical pattern). With little warning, he quit editing on 1/31, claiming to be moving to a place without internet access; this was very abrupt, and there was no discernable change in his editing pattern right up until the departure.

Zoporific was created a few hours later, on 2/1, and immediately resumed making the same kind of uncommon, "advanced" edits, in the same particular areas (CfD's, Mormon articles and categories, and patrolling) at the same impressive rate that Snocrates did (contribs: ). Zoporific also joined the same Wikiproject:.

When Snocrates returned on 2/10, saying internet service was available after all, Zoporific immedaiately reduced their contribution rate, but has not stopped editing completely. In the last day or so, however, their contributions have slowed to a trickle. There was little chronological overlapping of edits, as can be seen in the (poorly formatted) table at Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates/Combined contributions 31 Jan to 12 Feb 2008.

There was one short period of nearly overlapping edits, between 03:18 to 04:24 UTC, 12 Feb 2008. This leads me to believe they may have been using the same computer at least at that time, so I requested a Checkuser evaluation via email to Alison. I submitted this evidence and asked for it to be performed privately, in order not to disrupt Snocrates' RfA in case it came back negative. It came back confirmed. As soon as this SSP is filed, I will leave a message asking Alison to come here to confirm the checkuser results.

This is not an innocent alternate account or an aborted name change; both accounts have participated in the same CfD's. I won't provide all of the diffs, but for example, see many of the discussions at the CFD log for Feb 8th. If you search for Zoporific's name, you will see that in almost all of the discussions, both participate as separate people. In particular, here Snocrates thanks Zoporific for filing the CFD. The two accounts also tag-team edit warred on Dieter F. Uchtdorf, leading to the blocking of for 7 days on 11 Feb 08.

I think withdrawal from the RfA is clearly necessary, but beyond that and indef blocking the User:Zoporific sock, I'm not sure what other actions are needed here. It would be a shame to lose Snocrates' impressive categories work, but this is clearly unacceptable, especially in an admin candidate.


 * Comments


 * ✅ that is a sock of . This has been used abusively on the Dieter F. Uchtdorf article. I was requested in email to run a checkuser given the evidence above, which I carried out. Filing a public RFCU case would have been unfair on the RfA candidate regardless of the result. So yes, this editor has been socking -  A l is o n  ❤ 15:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to this page in the discussion section at Requests for adminship/Snocrates. This is the third time the user has disrupted the Dieter F. Uchtdorf article, and the disruption is recent. A prior block of 72 hours in November 2007 does not seem to have deterred the disruptive behavior. Therefore, I intend to place a one week block this time, pending a response from the user. Jehochman Talk 17:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Note: maintains that the other account is a different person using the same computer, see his talk page.  is currently unblocked. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether this is one person, or two roommates, it is not acceptable for them to tag team edit war the way they were doing on Dieter F. Uchtdorf. I am not blocking at this time because I think the point has been made, but if there are further problems, I expect that the community will react negatively. Jehochman  Talk 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A case could be made that claiming to be roommates, when I think the evidence demonstrates convincingly that it is one person, is a continuation of disruptive behavior. However, since there are now plenty of eyes on this user, she is unlikely to resume the sockpuppetry.  Although it sticks in my craw somewhat, I'm willing to drop this if that's what everyone else thinks is best, and I suppose taking it further runs the risk of embarrassing an otherwise productive user into leaving.  But for the record, I remain convinced this is one person, and I think we may be encouraging future copycat "my roommate did it" excuses by dropping this.  Since User:HLT was unblocked yesterday before his 7 days were up, I suppose blocks for the edit warring would also be pointless. --barneca (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is also double-voting in cfds on Jan 26, Jan 28, Jan 29, Jan 30, Jan 31, Feb 1, Feb 3, Feb 4, Feb 6, Feb 7, Feb 8, Feb 11. I am personally irritated about this one, which I would like relisted. I must say that the 2 room-mates defence doesn't begin to explain the editing patterns in Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates/Combined contributions 31 Jan to 12 Feb 2008 (together with the travel details given on Snocrates talk page - S and Z have not been on the same island since early Feb). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have warned both users. Jehochman  Talk 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)