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

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

• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

In November 2021 Tomwsulcer announced that he was quitting Wikipedia, following a COIN thread about articles he had created for his family and friends. However, after making a few minor edits with his main account in January 2022, he then used a new account, User:Desktime, to create a draft for John Mack Carter. (Mr. Carter was endorsed by Frederick D. Sulcer in a 1979 local election[1]; I don't know whether there's any other Sulcer family connection.) Tomwsulcer copied the article to mainspace without disclosing that he was the original author.[2]

Please compare the reference formatting of John Mack Carter to that of Molly Secours, Alizé Carrère, and other articles by Tomwsulcer. They all include list-defined references, arranged vertically, with ample use of ellipses within the |quote= fields. The only difference is that Tomwsulcer's ref names always begin with the letters "tws", while Desktime's ref names begin with "gsm". gnu57 16:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Isn't the general rule in this kind of situation to block the sock account indef and warn/temporarily block the master? I think I've seen similar situations like this before, with that being the outcome. wizzito | say hello! 20:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I esp. support a block/warning for WP:SOCK as the master has self-admitted it. wizzito | say hello! 20:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the participants of the discussion below are probably aware of the usual practices at SPI. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• CheckUser requested - Given how long Tomwsulcer has been around and how many edits he's made, I think we need a CU to confirm. Enough behavioral evidence has been presented to warrant the CU. Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I considered whether a new account could reasonably be considered a WP:CLEANSTART, and concluded that it would not (since there is currently something of a cloud), and especially not if it were used to avoid scrutiny with regards to a potential COI, so I ran a check. The result is  Possible - both accounts are pretty stable in terms of their IP data; they both geolocate to the same general region of the same large country, but are operating out of different IP ranges. Behavioural evidence would be needed for any connection to be made. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Girth Summit, for what it's worth, Tomwsulcer seems to have admitted to using this account here: [3] - I was frustrated when I was being hounded after the COI revelations so I did write the John Mack Carter article. Spicy (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It does look a bit like that doesn't it? I'm not sure I'd block the master for this, since it was a one-off thing that they've admitted - what do you reckon? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd tend to agree since they were not under formal sanctions at the time. Spicy (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Girth Summit @Spicy Desktime has a total of 7 edits. My inclination would be to just ignore it. There's a thread going on at WP:ANI#Stalking where Tomwsulcer may end up getting cbanned, but that's not really germane to the socking question. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @RoySmith: I thought the issue was what action to take, if any, against the master. Regardless of that decision, shouldn't the sock be blocked? Otherwise, we're sending a message that it's a legitimate alternative account; I don't see how that can be.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you are right; I was sloppy in what I wrote. The gist of what I was trying to say was that I don't think we need to take any action against the master. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I think we're agreed that the sock should be blocked, but that there is no purpose to be served in blocking Tomwsulcer over this isolated transgression; the community can decide what action (if any) they wish to take with regards to him at ANI. Desktime blocked, closing. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]