Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Footballfan190
- 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Footballfan190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Titaniumviper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
216.93.231.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Darkspots (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
Titaniumviper (talk · contribs) was created three minutes after Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Footballfan190 4 was closed NOTNOW. The two userpages bear a remarkable similarity to each other. Titaniumviper banged out a few edits in quick sucession that day to several articles, at least one edited earlier the same day the day before by Footballfan190 (talk · contribs), African Bush Elephant. No further contributions until today, August 4, 2008 when Titaniumviper supports Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Footballfan190 5, exactly three minutes after its transclusion. There is no reason for a new user to watchlist WP:RFA.
- Comments
- I observed the incident as it unfolded at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Footballfan190 5 and expressed similar misgivings about the support vote of User:Titaniumviper. In my opinion, the evidence points to sockpuppetry with the intent to vote stack. Recommend checkuser. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also recommend that User:Titaniumviper be blocked anyway due to persistent vandalism. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize Titaniumviper was anything more than a throwaway account when I filed the report, because I was just interested in the attempt to show false support at the RfA. But this is really unacceptable, and I think that removing Footballfan190's rollback rights is in order. Darkspots (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend checkuser. I find it incredible such a person would go for a fifth RfA; surely they should know someone willing to violate the rules so visibly would be inappropriate for adminship. Ironholds 10:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CheckUser is not needed. it's so obvious my 4 yr old cousin could tell. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 12:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so, Shapiros, but checkuser will help confirm it. not using checkuser means we cannot prove that the two accounts are sock-related, it only means we can suspect it. Ironholds 13:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think CheckUser is needed in this. Other than the obvious rfa buisness the past edits on the 23rd of july look very different although they do seem to carry on from each other. Suggesting CheckUser ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added another user, 216.93.231.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), based on vandalism[1] on Dennis Kucinich almost identical to the edit by Titaniumviper[2]; compare the IP's edits on 29 June, 21 July and 1 August with those by Footballfan190. --Snigbrook (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I've gone ahead and added a suspected sockpuppet template to the IP's userpage. It doesn't appear to be a business or education based IP. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the 2 registered accounts have very similar userpages. I'll wait until toolserver is back up to check some stuff on these accounts. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I've gone ahead and added a suspected sockpuppet template to the IP's userpage. It doesn't appear to be a business or education based IP. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added another user, 216.93.231.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), based on vandalism[1] on Dennis Kucinich almost identical to the edit by Titaniumviper[2]; compare the IP's edits on 29 June, 21 July and 1 August with those by Footballfan190. --Snigbrook (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you people accuse every user who you don't want to become an admin of sock puppetry. That makes no sense. I do not have a sockpuppet account. Read the userpages; There are different userboxes. Titaniumviper is 21 and I am 16. He lives in Memphis, Tennessee and I live nowhere near Memphis. Footballfan190 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't accuse all of the commentors here of bad faith. Sockpuppetry is viewed as a relatively serious offense on Wikipedia, and we are merely interested in getting to the bottom of this. I assure you, there is no bias against you in particular, or any other candidate who has previously failed RfAs. In fact, RfA has no bearing in this whatsoever, bar the fact that it prompted this case. Your explanation may prove to be true, but that is why some of us have suggested WP:RFCU. Just a word to the wise, if you are indeed "guilty", it's better to fess up and get the slap on the wrist than to continue to bilk us. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The conclusion seems to be that there should be an RCU. In that case, I suppose this report is moot and can be closed. Anyone volunteering to file the Request for Checkuser? Enigma message 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
The consensus seems to be that checkuser is the way to go in this case. I think it's pretty clear evidence, but I asked User:Scarian and he said to take it to checkuser and to close this. So I'm being bold. Feel free to reference this case in the checkuser request. Enigma message 23:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Outcome The checkuser confirmed that Footballfan190 operates the Titaniumviper account and edits from the IP address. Footballfan190 was blocked for a month [3] and the rollback rights were removed from the account, and Titaniumviper was indef blocked [4]. Darkspots (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]