Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Xp54321 (2nd)

User:Xp54321 2nd case

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Metros (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests_for_adminship/Xp54321 The only support for Xp54321 in his RFA was with this new user. If it is not sockpuppetry, then it is quite likely meat puppetry. Also, there's this edit where Xp54321 signed and edited as the IP address that Sman.grimtuesday said he was using. Metros (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence

Please run checkuser. Not socks. Don't even know where they came from. Also one alternate account. User:Mr.Xp. It's used for public user logins. Though I have yet to log in on a potentially compromised computer. Xp54321 ( Vandals Beware!!!, Contribs ) 02:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * A checkuser may not reveal sockpuppetry, but meatpuppetry is still viable. Can you explain how a new user with no other contributions found your RfA and supported?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He doesnt have to explain anything, if he is innocent how can he explain it, it is up to admins to prove these allegations. -- Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he doesn't have to explain anything - However, I am concerned with the harsh repercussions facing the user if he/she does not admit it. In fact, there is precedence for such a request.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. new user stumbles upon RFA,Decides to vote,votes,me accused of sock/meat.:) Xp54321 ( Vandals Beware!!!, Contribs ) 03:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll WP:AGF and take your word for it.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point, i tend to believe that people are innocent until proven otherwise on these issues, he maintains the account doesnt belong to him, he understands the consequences, hes been there before. Lets ashume he cant answer the question and try to avoid isolating him unnessarily. -- Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 03:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, taking a look at the evidence, Sman.grimtuesday creates an account at 02:07 and then supports an RFA at 02:08. He then proceeds to express his condolences at Xp54321's talk page. And then never edits again. Sure seems to me that if Xp54321 didn't sockpuppet the account, he had someone else create it and told him exactly where to go and what to type. Useight (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It DOES look suspicious, i agree, but please AGF, i know it can be hard at times. Also dont make accusations in the latter part of your message that are impossible to prove or disprove. Can we just get on with a checkuser and move on. If hes guilty hes blocked otherwise your treating him like a punchbag. Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 03:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sound like I'm "treating him like a punching bag", but my "accusation" that you speak of is actually an opinion, which is why I started with "Sure seems to me." Why am I using so many quote marks? I feel like a moron. And a meanie for sounding so accusing. I hope it's not a sockpuppet case and I'd like to believe him. I hope the checkuser comes up negative. Useight (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Opinions are not helpful, if thats what it really was, ill ashume it was, good faith and all. We need facts and evidence otherwise let this editer be and stop muddying his name. Sock puppet cases are not a free for all, a right to let out incivility. -- Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 03:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if the user creates an account and then !votes in an RfA a minute later, how did the user come across WP:RFA? -- RyRy5  ( talk  ♠  copy-edit ) 03:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A checkuser may be appropriate at this time. There seems to be some positives about the user being a sockpuppet (per !voting on RfA a minute after account creation) and some negatives (per Xp54321 not able to answer question). -- RyRy5  ( talk  ♠  copy-edit ) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line of this. WP:AGF is pivotal. All users should be given the benefit of the doubt and I'll do that here, but we should also manifest common sense. With that said, I urge the suspected user that if he/she knows anything about this at all, it behooves them to confess rather than continue on with a charade. The consequences can be severe, and I don't want to see a user driven away.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wisdom you ARE wise, but you should know that common sense never prevails on wikipedia. I think it is unfair though that things are being said about him that cannot be proven. If it is proven that hes done no wrong, there will still be some who believed he got someone else in on it because of what "Useight" said. That is not right, infact i think it should be removed from this page. Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 03:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sorry I sounded negative. I do not wish to sound libelous. I do not want to sound like I'm assuming bad faith. I agree with Wisdom89 that all users should be given the benefit of the doubt. If he maintains that wasn't involved, then that's fine with me, I'll believe him. I won't hold anything against him and I don't think anyone else will because of the opinion I voiced previously. Useight (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets hope not, ill view it as a lapse in judgement. Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 03:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I also agree with Wisdom at this time. assuming good faith is appropriate. I just looked through Special:Contributions/Xp54321 and he seems honest about this, that he is not the sockpuppeteer, that he didn't create his sock account. In my opinion, I don't think that the user is a sockpuppet of Xp54321. -- RyRy5  ( talk  ♠  copy-edit ) 03:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, what happens now? I'm getting tired of fellow editors fighting like my parents when I get in trouble. You know one wants to punish me. The other protects and comforts. The principal(think of an a really mean admin,not anyone here,just imaginary) couldn't care less and suspends me. Note this has never happened but my parents have argued over not so good grades. That's anhything below a B as I'm in honors, top of my classes. Please I don't want to be the reason for World War III. But yes I'm fine but I'm still irritated over rollback. Xp54321 ( Vandals Beware!!!, Contribs ) 21:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can this just be closed now, this delay is pointless. Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that. I think checkuser should still be run though. It'll turn up mr.xp but no socks. Xp54321 ( Vandals Beware!!!, Contribs ) 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm going to recommend that an administrator close this, or Metros retracts/withdraws the case.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

has been indef-blocked as a throwaway sock/meatpuppet account. I'll go ahead and give XP the benefit of the doubt, though his previous checkuser-confirmed socking makes me a bit hesitant to do so. MastCell Talk 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions