Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Whitewater111: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:31, 10 December 2010 editHelloAnnyong (talk | contribs)Administrators42,959 edits →Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: note← Previous edit Revision as of 02:32, 10 December 2010 edit undoTnxman307 (talk | contribs)64,361 edits checkedNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{SPI case status|endorse}} {{SPI case status|checked}}


<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude> <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
Line 40: Line 40:
*{{Endorse}} - ] (]) 02:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC) *{{Endorse}} - ] (]) 02:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
*Just as a procedural note, I've notified all the accounts about this case. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC) *Just as a procedural note, I've notified all the accounts about this case. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
**All three are {{confirmed}} as being the same. <font color="darkorange">]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>]</big></font></b><font color="red">]</font> 02:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
---- ----
<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> <!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 02:32, 10 December 2010

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Whitewater111

Whitewater111 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Whitewater111/Archive.


10 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Although these users do not share similar editing times, they do share similar editing habits. First, to the editing times, I would not use that to determine yay or nay if this user is a sock of the master, as they have so few edits it cannot be used to accurately determine such. As to their behavior, Whitewater's very first edit is to argue in favor of the article that Mboer has stated are both about him and his station. White's first edit aside, they again demonstrate knowledge of wikipedia markup, such as indentations.

We also have similar styles:

  • White water's use of variants of 'note'
  • MB's use of variants of 'note'

In case it was not noticed in the above two diffs, both White and the suspected sock use variants of noting several times in both of their posts, not to mention they have a similar style for posting their arguments. They have also both been attached to the fact that a certain radio station was not deleted as theirs was.

As MB is denying that they are a sock, or have a sock in regards to the Whitewater user, this would violate WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, and I do believe CU is required to determine if this user is indeed a sock, or master, given the lack of any other information aside from behavioral evidence. — Dædαlus 01:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Added Lukepowner (talk · contribs) as it was created today, also, going to G4 the article.— Dædαlus 02:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, seems it was already deleted.— Dædαlus 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I recommend the MBoerebach sock and leave the main account, Whitewater111, unblocked....if it is shown to by the CU to have only the one sock. I recommend this because the user is (I believe) new and does have Aspergers with limited eyesight. This should be taken into account when deciding what to do. I know this won't be the most popular recommendation and I am probably stepping on some rules, but I feel leeway is needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I recommend we encourage him to admit that he's used 2 accounts and offer him the choice of which one to use from now on, and not block either of them. And I recommend to MBoerebach to tell us now if there are any other accounts not yet turned up (Special:Contributions/Lukepowner is a possible, but it could very easily be someone who just happened to see the article before it was deleted). After all, declared alternate accounts aren't forbidden, as long as they are not used to try to "cheat" on policies such as WP:3RR. —Soap— 02:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Whitewater111: Difference between revisions Add topic