Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plant's Strider

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elen of the Roads (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 21 February 2013 (→‎Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: perhaps this would help). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Plant's Strider

Plant's Strider (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected


19 February 2013

– An administrator or SPI clerk requires more information to determine what action to take.

Suspected sockpuppets


Behavior

  • Minor edits to pages, mostly small copy edits, removal of material deemed "unnecessary" (see below), or inconsequential and trivial changes to formatting.

Pages in common:

According to this tool. GB has edited at least 13 pages (within 10 days) that PS had edited.

Edit summaries:

  • "copy-editing". - Edit summary search: PS and GB

Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • This looks the same person who has changed from one username to another, abandoning the first. The same kind of disruptive behavior is being shown by the new username, including HOUNDing and violations of CITEVAR. I recommend blocking both accounts for two weeks as an escalation of the previous one week block. The editor can choose which one to continue with afterward. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • GeezerB made this edit to David Gilmour at 14:27, 17 February 2013. Then, 34 minutes later an IP editing from an open proxy made this edit to my talk page. Then GeezerB made this edit as the first of many on 19 February. How does this relate to Plant's Strider? Well, he made this edit to my talk at 23:13, 22 December 2012, which is quite similar to this edit made on 06:36, 21 August 2012 by another obvious proxy sock. Of course I cannot prove that the IP proxies are PS/GB, but I think a basic duck test would show that there are too many overlapping behaviours to dismiss this out of hand. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • "New User" and "Sock" are not the only available options :). And creating a new account and editing solely from that is not socking. Is there evidence of actual disruptive editing or hounding? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, fraid not, although see ANI - if I had known Evan was acting off his own bat I wouldn't have mentioned you. "He must be a sock" is not a good reason to run a CU when the edits are not problematic, and picking potential sockmasters apparently at random isnt exactly helping, although it's a common reaction. Do you have evidence of hounding or disruptive editing? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So when its at AN/I it should be at SPI, and after its at SPI you want "evidence of hounding or disruptive editing". Wouldn't "evidence of hounding or disruptive editing" be more appropriate at AN/I? I thought this was about socking. Does one need to hound or disrupt to sock? By your logic, all PS/GB/Radiopathy needs to do is make another account each time the last gets sullied. Seems like you're throwing the productive good-faith editors under the bus while protecting the obvious socks. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good question to ask. If GeezerB is Plant's Strider, he's not socking. There is no prohibition on sequential accounts. Read WP:SOCK If you could demonstrate problematic editing and hounding, you'd have some chance at claiming the user had changed his username to avoid scrutiny - although Plant's Strider was a short lived account, with only one short block for a bit of edit warring so you might have difficulty there. As it is, I cannot see that a CU could be justified under the policy - although the clerks and other CUs might of course take a different view. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SOCK: "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse." Please see Piriczki's diffs above. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FALSENEGATIVE Anyway, I'll leave this to the clerks and other Checkusers. I don't think there's enough evidence at this time to perform a check, but the views of other relevant parties may vary.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, if its proof of disruptive editing that you want then look here and here, despite this, which is yet another behaviour reminiscent of User:Plant's Strider. See here and here. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Additional information needed - Plant's Strider and GeezerB are obviously related, but they are not socking. If Plant's Strider starts editing again, feel free to refile I don't see any evidence listed to justify a check on Falco70. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I'm not the only one to notice the identical edit summaries used by Geezer and Falco? I really don't want to make another list. If I recall correctly, alternative accounts are only allowed if their use is made known to the community. I would also think jumping from account to account as soon as one is identified would be frowned upon. Is that incorrect? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably more helpful if you can find something that is unique to these two editors. You could probably make yourself out to be a sock of me if you're only going on edit summaries like "fix" "formatting" and "reference". Just saying. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to say that the similarities shown in edit summaries add up to a suspicious total, especially considering the similar typography in all of them. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reluctantly agree with Evan's assertion that SPI has become a "how-to-sock-and-get-away-with-it manual". Elen, you want something unique to these editors (PS and GB)? PS never made a single comment at the last SPI involving him and GB has not made a single comment here. I think that's quite unusual. If I were an editor of 10 days and someone accused me of being a sock, I would certainly at least take part in the SPI discussion, if for no other reason then to find out what was going on. Yeah, I know, that's not evidence per se, but it is a unique behavioural similarity that would seem to defy reason and common practice. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "Plant's Strider and GeezerB are obviously related, but they are not socking." Consider this, had PS returned from their one-week block and proceeded to follow me to Wagner (as I was reviewing it at FAC), Vital Articles (two weeks after I started editing there) and Death of Jimi Hendrix (while at FAC), I predict that he would have been warned or blocked for continuing to follow me around. So really, the GeezerB account is gaming the system to do what PS could not without scrutiny. What if PS had an IB with me or Evan, would GB still be in the clear? Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This claim of 'following you'.... Perhaps if you could explain what he's doing that's so threatening to you and how he is so apparently making your life a misery, you might gain more traction. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Plant%27s_Strider&oldid=539332082"