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:Dorftrottel[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Michael Allan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Mr Senseless (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

This might be a bit of a long shot, I realize that some of it could be circumstantial, but I've started to feel very suspicious about these two accounts. My concerns stem from an AfD discussion on the article Recombinant text. The page in question was authored by Michael Allan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has not once contributed to the deletion discussion, but Dorftrottel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been the only user arguing for the article's inclusion in the deletion discussion. His comments have at times violated WP:CIVIL, and he has accused other editors of violating discussion policy and canvassing, which is not the case (the original AfD nominator wanted to ask other editor's opinions on whether the article should go to AfD, he did not - at least on my talk page - attempt to influence my vote one way or the other.) I find the fact that he's the only one arguing for this article's inclusion a little odd, especially since the author hasn't said a word on the discussion, and doesn't have many edits other than on Recombinant text, which makes me wonder if Michael Allan is an alternate account of Dorftrottel, in an attempt to mask incivility and gain more credibility in the deletion discussion (since the pro arguments are coming from someone other than the author) I'm fairly sure that would constitute abusive sockpupetry. I could be wrong, this is not an outright accusation, I just want someone else, preferably an admin, to review these two accounts, and get a second opinion. Mr Senseless (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• LOL. User:Dorftrottel 15:55, January 12, 2008
• User:Dorftrottel a sockpuppet for User:Michael Allan? Does seem to be a bit of a huge stretch to me. Have two sockpuppets ever had such different personalities? I'm not surprised that no one else has come to the defense of the page—how many people could be expected to come across such a page? That was my thinking when I posted to several editors' talk pages: Probably only two or three people a year could be expected to notice such a page. And it's only been a few hours since this discussion started; give the author (who says that this article is pretty much his only baby on Wikipedia) at least a few days or even a week to notice what we're talking about. Anyway, it is an amusing notion (and I guess could be a great Sockpuppet Strategy). Unschool (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I understand your reasoning Mr Senseless, Dorftrottel doesn't strike me as the sockmaster type. I have many times come to the rescue of articles at AFD, and I don't operate the creator of the page. Basing this assumption on an SSP, isn't assuming good faith and I'd encourage you to contact Dorft himself about this matter. Until that time, would there be any objections to the closure of this? Rudget. 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objections to closing it, see the message I wrote on your talk page. I also contacted Dorftrottel to apologize and tell him the SSP case is being closed. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

It has become clear that the user, Dorftrottel, isn't abusing sockpuppets and the supposed sockpuppet has no relation. Closing as withdrawn nomination and quick close. Rudget. 23:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]