Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Stand Dealt: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:57, 21 April 2007

User:Stand Dealt

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Stand Dealt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by 24fan24 (talk) 00: 29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

With the exception of User:Movie Eager, each of these account were created after Croton Gorge Park was prodded have only made edits to Croton Gorge Park or its afd. User:Movie Eager was created shortly before the prod of Croton Gorge Park but of their 4 edits, two have been to Croton Gorge Park and one was to its afd. I believe that User:Stand Dealt is trying to make it appear that many users are interested in Croton Gorge Park and hopes that this will prevent the article's from being deleted.

User:Solveeven added unsupported tags to all of the other above suspected socks as suspected socks of me. [1] --24fan24 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Itemloans, User:Sleep month and User:Moral Army create an account just to comment on this report. [2] [3] [4]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24fan24 (talk • contribs).
[[User:Stand Dealt and User:Movie Eager edit this article withing three minutes of each other.[5]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24fan24 (talk • contribs).
User:Itemsrange created an account just to label herself a sock and make this comment. Still no violation. -Itemsrange 02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's not sockpuppets. The number of users interested in an article has nothing to do with whether or not an article is deleted. However, you seem to have nominated for deletion an article that should not have been nominated as the subject of the article is notable indeed. The "sockpuppets" are separate registrations and have not been used to "vote" multiple times on the AFD, which is not a vote anyway. Please review the Wikipedia guidelines related to sockpuppets. Users are allowed to have multiple accounts. Your report here is ludicrous. -Leastdays 01:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should review Wikipedia's sock puppet guidelines, WP:SOCK prohibits users from having multiple accounts under most circumstances. Furthermore, I realize that the amount of users interested in an article does not determine an article's faith, I just believe that it what User:Stand Dealt may think. --24fan24 (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks are not prohibited but discouraged. You're wrong. -Itemloans 02:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but socks "should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists." (quote from WP:SOCK) I have looked, and that is apparently the case here. Stand Dealt, if you are sock puppeting, your actions are not helping, and I ask you to stop. If not, then I think a CheckUser is absolutely called for. Ab e g92We are all Hokies! 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abeg92 is right, multiple accounts are allowed, but not if you edit the same articles with them. That is a violation of policy. Mackan 14:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What policy might that be? -Sleep month 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK --24fan24 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not there in THAT policy. Where is this fantasy policy, exactly? Pray tell. -Moral Army 18:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SOCK:

Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion (vote fraud). Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in discussions such as Wikipedia:Deletion debates, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages. In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists.

That's the applicable section. --24fan24 (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, doesn't say you can't edit the same article with them. That section of that policy doesn't address that at all. Fact is, these accounts are NOT being used to try to deceive anyone or enter in a debate or distract or whatever. I just use a different account everytime I use Wikipedia. I have that right. It's not harming anyone. You don't understand the rules. -Loose Every 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line, you're barking up the wrong tree. Stop wasting my time, please. Harrassment of a user who is not violating policy in word or spirit is AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY. It's called WikiStalking. -Loose Every 18:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the Accused

Since the socks have not violated policy in any way, a checkuser would be an egregarious invasion of privacy. -Stand Dealt 02:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a suspected sock, I concur. -Movie Eager 02:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts should just be blocked IF there is a violation of policy. -Sleep month 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 {{user5|1=Moral Army}}<br>
 {{user5|1=Loose Every}}<br>
+{{user5|1=Clearages}}<br>
 <!--If there are additional suspected sockpuppets to be included, add them above this comment using the form {{user5|1=SOCKPUPPET}}<br>, replacing SOCKPUPPET in each case with the user name that you suspect is a sockpuppet of the puppetmaster. (Leave out the "User:" prefix.)  Leave the <br> tag after each one and add or remove lines as necessary.  Remove this comment once completed. -->