Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikeoworthy/Archive

• {{checkuser|1=Kenworthyjack}}

• [http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/cgi-bin/uc?uc=Mikeoworthy User compare report] Auto-generated every hour.
• [http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py Editor interaction utility]

Similar usernames (worthy), and focus on the article Lewis Capaldi.

Mikeoworthy created the original deleted version of this article in July [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Lewis+Capaldi×tamp=20170705173728&diff=prev]

Kenworthyjack created a page very similar to the deleted version, which also includes one of the tags that a new page reviewer placed on the deleted article in July [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lewis_Capaldi&oldid=806224254].

After becoming autoconfirmed Mikeoworthy moved the draft to mainspace: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lewis_Capaldi&type=revision&diff=806860993&oldid=806415841].

Not requesting a CU myself at this time because I think the accounts are pretty DUCK-worthy. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

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

{{User:Sir Sputnik/ClerkAtWork}}

• Duck-worthy, sure, but is it block-worthy? This editors actions are benign enough that I don't think administrative action is necessary here. Absent clear evidence of disruption this falls into the grey area between WP:LEGIT and WP:ILLEGIT. A warning about the misuse of multiple accounts should be sufficient here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• {{u|Sir Sputnik}}, yes, this is a clear attempt to circumvent ACTRIAL and the user is using two accounts to promote a subject when the article was previously deleted from Wikipedia. That is not a legitimate use of multiple accounts and I would put it pretty clearly in WP:ILLEGIT as Circumventing policies or sanctions, since the current policy on the English Wikipedia is that new users cannot create pages directly in mainspace, and before the page was rescued by an admin was little more than a promotional blurb. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• That motive doesn't fit with timing involved. If the motivation is to game ACTRIAL, why register a second account when you've already got one that's already most of the way to autoconfirmed? I think plausible reading is that this editor forgot their password, registered a second account, realized ACTRIAL was thing, and then decided it was worthwhile to recover their first account. In either case, I think block would disproportional to the only minimal disruption caused, if any, and would be just as likely to cause sockpuppetry as to prevent it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• {{u|Sir Sputnik}}, having two accounts review work on the same article with one creating and one reviewing to make it seem like it has actually been reviewed by a third party is a normal practice for COI editors and UPE farms, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lewis_Capaldi&type=revision&diff=806860993&oldid=806415841 this edit summary], which was linked above makes that intent clear: the goal is to make other users think that an independent party has reviewed the content and that it should be included in Wikipedia in order to avoid scrutiny that normally comes with new pages. This is a behavioral pattern of spam and UPE accounts, which is much more likely than forgetting a password in this case given that the master knew that the article had previously been deleted from Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• If the intent is to deceive, their doing it so poorly then they definitely shouldn't be paid for it. I'd like to think anyone in that position would be smart enough to not create such an obvious link between their accounts. There's a assumption of good faith that fits the behaviour, to my eyes, and given that I will not recommend administrative action. You are of course free to ignore that recommendation. As I've already said I think that be counter productive, whether I'm right or not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

----