Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/William M. Connolley


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:William M. Connolley

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

~ UBeR 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by:

As proposed by an anonymous IP user earlier, and through the suggestion of Brittainia, there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry with Wikipedia user William M. Connolley.
 * Evidence

Someguy1221, since day one of his inception just last month, has been reverting vandalism and giving warnings on user pages (seems advanced for a first day user—but nevermind that). In his first non-reversion or warning, he casted a vote to speedy delete an article on solar system warming. That is, without prior notice.

Philosophus, an admitted sockpuppet, also took place in the vote, and decided to delete the article. Just four days after the inception of this account, this user, not surprisingly, voted to accept William M. Connolley as an administrator.

William M. Connolley has had a long and continuous role of POV-pushing and unwarranted content deletion in articles relating to such topics.[Ref#6.5][Etcetera] ~ UBeR 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * This accusation is entirely ridiculous. The accusations are by an IP user and a red-link with an account history of two weeks and less than 100 edits, neither of which present any evidence. William is one of our most active and valued contributors and administrators. The three accounts have different editing patterns and histories. And whoever thinks that William would need a second account to edit "articles where harassment outside of Wikipedia might be an issue" should familarize himself or herself with his edit history. This is at best stupidity, at worst harrasment. --Stephan Schulz 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I find this case implausible, and possibly vexatious. If you're going to accuse an admin of sockpuppetry, you need stronger evidence than this, and you should probably note that William M. Connolley blocked Philosophus for 3RR on 31 July 2006: . Unless someone supplies better evidence for this accusation I think this case should be closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Dismissed and closed right now. Nonsense. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)