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:Spindoctor69

[edit]
Suspected sock puppeteer

Spindoctor69 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
Comments
  • I note that Spindoctor69 has apologised for his error in editing whilst not logged in. He states that he has now returned the comments I reverted; now placed after logging in. I respect that he is a new user and I am attempting to maintain as good faith as possible but I note that he has not in fact returned the comment (which my diff immediately above details) where he/the IP split the vote of Gene Pool into two votes. I wonder also if there is not an admission of colluded or conflict of interest style meat-puppetry at the very least in his comments below?--VS talk 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP user- The IP user comments were made by me accidentaly while I was logged out (I had not realized that I was not logged in) I have now re-instated the comments under my name. As for this other account, I believe this is a coleague of mine (we went to the same school together and are in the same industry). If this counts as a conflict of interests, by all means take the action needed against him, but please leave his comments (if not his Keep Vote) because they are worthy of being read in the debate. Matilda, since you seem to know more about the regulations of Wikipedia than I do (this is not a sarcastic nor agressive comment so please respond accordingly), if this is not the appropriate place to leave this comment, please move it and notify my when you do so. Thankyou. Spindoctor69 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Improper attempt to influence AfD outcome. --Matilda talk 06:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No that is nonsense Redgator5 - Gene Poole has a history of making such comments - indeed he did on one another you were involved in just before this one. His comment was not sarcasm - indeed the bottom of the page you refer to is my edit where I am alerting the moderator to the fact that his comments were inappropriate. Fact is you and/or SpinDoctor did change the comments by another editor.--VS talk 02:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final conclusion Sock-puppetry proven by this edit [1] clearly the same IP that the above suggests is Spindoctor.--VS talk 12:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking All three accounts now blocked as sock puppets and tagged.--VS talk 12:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further information. The web site being promoted by Spindoctor69 and his socks, fis.com, is registered in Argentina. The IP sock locates to Argentina. As was already fairly obvious from his comments, Spindoctor69 is probably associated with the web site and the company. This is irrelevant to the notability discussion taking place in the re-opened AfD, in my opinion, since the motivation of an author is irrelevant to whether the topic is notable or not. (I'll confirm that a review of the IP evidence, i.e., logged-out edits later acknowledged by the editor, leads to a firm conclusion that Spindoctor and Redgator5 were editing from the same IP.) Abd (talk --16:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the details of another sockpuppet above. This IP also locates to the same details as the above. I have not as yet addressed the issue of blocking for evasion of this ban. Other opinions (and if necessary administrator actions) will be appreciated.--VS talk 22:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the project is well-served by indefinitely blocking this user. The user has conducted himself very naively, but may be restrained if given clear guidance. It's a bit strange to call IP edits sock puppetry, as such, though that is common usage here. The user should be warned that evasion of a block by sock puppetry is an offense in itself, but at the same time, the original blocks should be lifted, at least as to one account, probably Redgator5, though he should be able to choose; the offense simply was not egregious enough to warrant an indef block, in my opinion. The indef block essentially invites sock puppetry, of various kinds, creating more administrative hassle. We'd be better off with the user having an identified account, restricted as appropriate for the probable COI. If he violates clear warnings, then stronger measures become warranted. As it is, he naively created the sock puppet (or recruited a friend using, perhaps, the same network router) and was indef blocked as a consequence, without having been clearly warned. I'd suggest that, once sock puppetry was strongly suspected, the user should have been offered a "deal": Acknowledge any socks, stick to one account, and acknowledge and respect WP:COI rules, and be unblocked. If he accepts it, fine, we'd all benefit. (Instead of thinking of him as a COI nuisance, think of him as an advisor, someone expert on the topic but naive about Wikipedia policy and practice -- we'd confirm his advice, of course.) If he continues to be blocked, he'll probably evade, causing more trouble in the future. We can't just block an entire major service provider for Argentina, and the IP edits, were they not block evasion, would not be disruptive at all, as far as I've noticed. --Abd (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts blocked, this is just lingering now, so concluding and archiving. GbT/c 17:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More