Login
Login

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some/Archive

__TOC__

{{SPIarchive notice|Gerbelzodude99}}
{{SPIpriorcases}}

=== <big>Report date November 29 2009, 23:11 (UTC)</big>===

{{SPIcat}}

====== Suspected sockpuppets ======

====<span style="font-size:150%"> Evidence submitted by [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] </span>====

Gerbelzodude99 created a new account on Nov 26 and proceeded immediately to file a properly formatted AFD request on Shotgun Man, then an ANI complaint against User:IP69.226.103.13. It was clearly evident that this was an experienced user and not a brand new account, based on sophistication of use. I advised them on ANI and their talk page that they were violating WP:ILLEGIT using a sock account to edit project space, avoid scrutiny, and in a good hand / bad hand role. I offered to avoid further sanction if they identified themselves, and when they did not do so indef blocked the account.

They have subsequently stated on their talk page that they were an IP editor before, are not a sockpuppet, and had gotten familiar with the project that way, and invited a checkuser investigation to clear their name.

I am unwilling to unblock based on the totality of evidence so far - I can't AGF given the evidence. However, their claim somewhat complicates the situation. Either it is true, and I overreacted, or it's not, they are in fact an established user using good hand bad hand, and they're trying to keep up the facade after warnings. If it's the latter, then further action may be required (and if it's the former, I should unblock).

I believe a CU is appropriate to disambiguate the situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's sixth edit was to report me at AN/I for stalking him by responding to his first ever edit on wikipedia, a properly formatted AfD. I think he forgot he was signed into his brand new sock when he posted at AN/I, inadvertently forgetting he'd only made two edits on this account (the AfD and the AfD log) when I responded to the AfD, and that it wasn't possible to stalk him unless he'd made more edits.

It's not a usual complaint that someone stalked your first edit on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

====<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties &nbsp;&nbsp; </span>====

See Defending yourself against claims.

====<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by other users </span>====

====<span style="font-size:150%"> CheckUser requests </span>====

{{RFCU| F | No2ndletter | Checked }}    Requested by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

{{endorse}} MuZemike 03:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

====<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>====

Asking for a second opinion. -- Avi (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

====<span style="font-size:150%"> Conclusions </span>====

  • {{Unlikely}} - No likely sockpuppets found on IP used by Gerbelzodude99. -- Avi (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

{{SPIclose|archive}}

----

=== <big>Report date December 28 2009, 17:56 (UTC)</big> ===

{{SPIcat}}

;Suspected sockpuppets

  • {{checkuser|1=Torkmann}}
  • {{checkuser|1=Gerbelzodude99}}

;Evidence submitted by TheWeakWilled (T * G)

Editing pattern of these three users makes me think that there is definitate sockpuppeting happening here. User:Gerbelzodude99's first contribution was and AFD, and User:Drawn Some frequented AFD, User:Drawn Some stopped editing in September 2009, shortly thereafter User:Torkmann started heavily editing. Torkmann's second day on wikipedia consisted of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_H._Sylvester&diff=prev&oldid=304798672 nominating an article for deletion] that was connected to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (who User:Drawn Some had conflicts with), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metropolitan_Police_Department_of_the_District_of_Columbia_Chiefs&diff=prev&oldid=304805532 another afd] and yet another [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suffrage_Hike&diff=prev&oldid=304953248 afd] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_MMORPG&diff=prev&oldid=304969219 a MFD]. User:Gerbelzodude99's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sir_Charles_Johnston&diff=prev&oldid=334207008 19th contrib] was an afd, and has made [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Gerbelzodude99&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia limited contribs] to the mainspace for being a new user. All have been involved in afds concerning Joachim Cronman TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:I reported the wrong user as the sockmaster, User:Drawn Some would be the sockmaster.

;Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

;Comments by other users

Most of their contributions appear to be nominating articles that I start.

And of course, all three accounts have nominated the same article: Joachim Cronman

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

  • Checkuser is not for fishing. Jack Merridew 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::And no one is fishing. The rules call for investigations of disruptive editing and for users avoiding potential sanctions, and users voting at same AFD under multiple accounts. Given the following ANIs filed against him its appears he is trying to avoid sanctions for his disruptions:

::*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Drawn Some and Richard Arthur Norton III,

::*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Wikistalking and edit warring by User:Drawn Some

::*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive198#User:Drawn Some seems to be wikistalking User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:::"Fishing" means there is no idea who the person might be a sock of, but one merely sees some behavior that leads one to conclude there might be someone out there. When the particular suspected users are identified, as they are here, it isn't fishing. Personally, though, I think the evidence is sufficient to block without checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with RAN58 and DGG, this request is not fishing, it was justified by the evidence presented. ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

: the 'unsigned' section was not present when I made my comment; and I've not looked at it, either. Off to eat. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

; Q.: We have two socks blocked but not Drawn Some; I see a problem with this being filed under an unconvicted user name and believe it needs to be moved to one of the blocked IDs. Or Drawn Some gets dinged, too. There's currently a 'suspicion' on his user page and he's not editing (at least not with that account). Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

;CheckUser requests

{{RFCU|F|No2ndletter|checked}}    Requested by TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I am not sure where to add this, but here we go. I have no idea what any of you are talking about. I have no idea who this Gerbelzo guy is, but I will admit to familiarity with Drawn Some, as I know he had nominated the Cronman article for deletion in September. Feel free to check the IP, I have nothing to hide. Torkmann (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

;Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I will say right now that User:Drawn Some is {{staleIP}} for CheckUser purposes, so we won't be able to check on that. –MuZemike 20:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

;Conclusions

I did some [http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&all=on&user1=Torkmann&user2=Gerbelzodude99 digging] into contribs. Torkman and Gerbelzodude99 both participated (and voted delete) on the same article AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery. Given the interest similarity and other factors, there's enough to warrant a check. First MuZe is right...

  • {{checkuser|Drawn Some}} - {{staleIP}} - so no way to check the connection.

Next I consider it highly {{likely}}, almost {{confirmed}}, that

  • {{checkuser|1=Torkmann}} ==
  • {{checkuser|1=Gerbelzodude99}}

Note: See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gerbelzodude99&oldid=328842303 this] archived version of a previous report relating to Gerbelzodude99... I can't find it in the archive here, I thint it went missing.

{{tlx|Clerk Request}} - Can a clerk investigate and correct the archiving or link or something so it can be found again? Thanks!

Block on behavior. Advise of questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:Cleaned up the mess with the archive. Have to run off and do something else, so could someone else take a look at the behavioral evidence and see if it is enough to mark Drawn Some as the sockmaster in this case? NW (Talk) 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::After looking over the behavioral evidence, I don't think there is enough to implicate Drawn Some. It certainly seems possible, and even likely, but I am not comfortable blocking based on just my suspicion (though of course any administrator is free to do so). I have, however, indefinitely blocked both Torkmann and Gerbelzodude99. NW (Talk) 01:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I got an offline private request to look into

  • {{checkuser|1=Average White Dork}}

Ran a quick check and it is {{confirmed}} that AWD ==

  • {{checkuser|1=Torkmann}}

AND

  • {{checkuser|1=Gerbelzodude99}}

and also sleepers

  • {{checkuser|1=Badboys2fanaticguy}}
  • {{checkuser|1=Cableguy77}}

Both now blocked and tagged as Torkmann socks as is AWD.

NOTE: this pivot raises to {{confirmed}}, that

  • {{checkuser|1=Torkmann}} ==
  • {{checkuser|1=Gerbelzodude99}}

++Lar: t/c 07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

{{SPIclose}}

----