Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willie Peter


 * 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:Willie Peter

 * Suspected sockpuppet


 * Suspected sockpuppet master


 * Report submission by: Chaser - T 05:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This case stems from an edit war at George Soros about the inclusion of some material that allegedly violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Willie Peter (who I suspect of being someone's meatpuppet rather than a sockpuppet master) joined the edit-warring over the inclusion of that material.
 * Evidence

Willie Peter's account was created less than 24 hours ago and his first few edits indicate he is not a newbie, but is familiar with Wikipedia, our policies, and this content dispute two to userpage, user talk page, Soros article with edit summary "have been watching the arguments..., and removing an alleged personal attack in a section header. While it's not clear who Willie Peter is, this evidence suggests he is someone's meatpuppet.

tagged Willie Peter's user page with a suspected sock tag, prompting a ridiculous edit-war. Crockspot filed this 3rr report, the three of them argued at AN/3RR, and I protected the page. I blocked WilliePeter and Eleemosynary when the conflict spilled onto the former's talk page.

In any case, the real evidence here is that Willie Peter attempted to insert  the same material that Crockspot and Bellowed had been edit-warring over the last few days   (more examples in the page history). I don't see any other plausible suspects in the history. Either Crockspot or Bellowed could be using a meatpuppet account to evade BLP and 3RR restrictions, or they may have been on the wrong side of a content dispute with a suspicious meatpuppet account. I think only checkuser will resolve this.

The article is now protected in a version without the material that allegedly violates BLP.

Correction Crockspot's only reversions were June 13 and 16. I was sloppy in describing them as "edit warring over the last few days".


 * Comments

Checkuser pending.--Chaser - T 06:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not edited the article in question since 16 June, which can hardly be characterized as "edit warring over the last few days". I backed off of editing when Jayjg warned me. This is a prime example of an editor repeating a lie, claiming there is evidence but failing to provide it, and having their lie end up in an official WP report (this one). And who got blocked for edit warring? That editor, not me. My block log is pristine. I have been enduring weekly attacks from different editors ever since there was open discussion of the possibility of me filing a request for Admin. There appears to be a coordinated attempt to damage my reputation in an effort to sabotage any RfA I may be considering. My edit history has been characterized as troublesome, when it is full of vandal fighting, blp patrolling, and improving sources in articles. I do get into the occasional dispute, because I am not easily intimidated by agenda pushers who know how to game the system. But my edit history and block log are enviable. I hope some attempt will be made to clear my name when this is all straightened out. - Crockspot 12:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, the only reason I include you is that you are the only obvious choices. It's a matter of being very suspicious about Willie Peter and only seeing two possibilities of whose meatpuppet he could be.--Chaser - T 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Goethean intimated to me that he was positive that it was a sock of JoeHazelton, who I am not familiar with, so I cannot judge if he's right or not. If it is a sock, it very likely is related to a history with Goethean on Peter Roskam and Tammy Duckworth, at least according to Goethean. - Crockspot 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Willie Peter's only edits were to George Soros. Is there some evidence I'm missing?--Chaser - T 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your guess is as good as mine. I decided last week that it was imprudent for me to continue editing the article. I saw a new user jump into the fray, so I went to welcome him, and provide him with some tools to keep himself out of trouble. He didn't seem like a NEW new user to me, but I figured it could be a longtime IP editor who finally registered. Until another editor started slapping my name into a sockpuppet template, that was pretty much the limit of my involvement with this user. Goethean could be right, and I don't know for a fact that it isn't a sock of Bellowed, but I do know for a fact that it isn't a sock or meatpuppet of mine. I don't operate that way, and I have openly discussed the possibility of requesting admin status. Anyone who follows RfA knows that checkusers will probably be run on future candidates (if they aren't already), so I would have to be a complete moron to engage in such behavior right before making an RfA, particularly when I have never engaged, nor been accused of engaging in puppetry in the 13 months that I have been a registered editor. Honestly, do I appear to be a complete moron to you? - Crockspot 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, and I don't really know you. Why don't we just wait for the checkuser to come back? I understand it's not a very comfortable thing to be accused of something you didn't do, but the checkuser should resolve things.--Chaser - T 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It will clear up the sock allegation, but I don't see how it can disprove the meat accusation, and I fully expect when Eleesomnary's block expires, the meatpuppet accusations will continue. That's the problem with meatpuppetry accusations. They're difficult to prove or disprove, and the suspicion always remains. That's why they are such an effective weapon that some like to use against those they disagree with. It keeps them from having to address valid points in discussion, and gives them a quasi-acceptable avenue of addressing the contributor, and not the content. - Crockspot 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Crockspots comment. I'm glad the sockpuppet report is out now, but like he said, we have this meatpuppet thing looming over us, which is unprovable either way. I hope that something could be done about it, like if he was asked not to throw accusations around recklessly so that we're not further smeared here with this baseless stuff. &#124;3 E &#124;_ &#124;_ 0 VV E &#124;) 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on his talk page . I will be monitoring the situation. Please contact me if there is another accusation.--Chaser - T 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser came back unrelated.--Chaser - T 01:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Willie Peter has been blocked as a Joe Hazelton sock. Checkuser came back unrelated on the other two users, and I don't find that there's nearly enough evidence here to conclude that they're socks, especially in light of that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)