Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Adam233

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:Adam233[edit]

Suspected sock puppeteer

Adam233 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
Comments
  • Adam233 used his first edit to start this, claiming that the micronation is a hoax. The vast majority of his edits (if not all of his edits) were contributions to deletion discussions. Next, Akc2114 used his first edit to start this, and again it was a deletion nomination for a micronation article under the claim of "hoax". Also, all of his contributions were part of his involvement in the deletion discussion. Adam233 then returned to agree with his comments.
  • Both accounts have deletion nominations of micronations as their first edit.
  • Both accounts agree and support each other in the Melchizedek nomination and have a similar opinion on the subject of micronations in general.
  • Both accounts only ever discuss deletion nominations.
  • Both accounts have made the claim of "hoax".

No editor has so far agreed with these accounts opinions, and their first edit is very unusual for a new editor. There are many similarities, and that is why I consider these accounts possible sockpuppets. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further information - I have looked at the history of the discussions, and it seems that both have also made the claim that the micronations "do not exist" as well as stating that they are "hoaxes". Adam233 has also made the same "Micronations shouldn't be shown as real on Wikipedia" argument on the Forvik page, which Akc2114 has used on the Melchizedek nomination. Even Adam233 has stated below that the accounts have many similarities. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akc2114 is not my sockpuppet. But he really looks like my sockpuppet. Why should a user create an account that looks like the sockpuppet of another user? Maybe someone (Gene Poole, coldacid, Onecanadasquarebishopsgate, Dalvikur or Doug Weller?) tries to provoke a checkuser for phishing. Adam233 (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence for this? Also, why would we do that? If any editor were to have created such an account, the checkuser would show that the Akc2114 account does not match the Adam233 account, but rather one of our accounts - and we know that if we did such a thing we would lose our accounts! Not only that, but we are not the ones that view the results of the checkuser, only accounts that can access checkuser can do that (the reason why we have a suspected sockpuppet page). So unless you have evidence for your claims, why should anyone believe it? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence for what? I am only speculating why a user should create an account that looks like a sockpuppet of another user. Adam233 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can speculate several scenarios, but without evidence, speculation is absolutely useless. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the revision history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominion of Melchizedek, Akc2114 is identical to User:160.39.63.175. Adam233 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know what this accusation was. I take it this means that you think I and Adam233 are the same person? I only made contributions to the DoM page, and have not even viewed the other page Adam233 requested for deletion. So your claim that we support each other in each deletion request is fallacious. While I can see that it appears suspicious that this is the first action taken in my account, my desire to inform people I perceived to be immediately harmed by misleading impressions was what motivated me to create a Wikipedia account at all. So, in all honesty, I think it makes perfect sense that something so sensitive would be among the first (and in my case, likely only) contributions made. Akc2114 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to his IP address, Akc2114 lives in New York. I don't even live near New York. So why bother? Adam233 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the general subject of micronations, but even so, commenting on the use of the plural "nominations" (and words in general) is just a complete strawman argument - it does not refute the allegations - so what evidence do you have to refute them? Did you read the "notes for the suspect"? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: This is an open and shut case of single-purpose sockpuppetry conceived and perpetrated with the aim of disrupting WP. The puppetmaster has created two sock accounts - Adam233 and Akc2114 - whose contributions are almost identical. Each accounts's first edit consisted of a tendentious AfD nomination for an article about a micronation. Each account supported its AfD nomination by asserting that the article was a "hoax". Both accounts misread WP policy in that regard, identically, and as a consequence both AfD nominations failed to gain the support of any editor apart from the respective nominator. Both accounts have been used to commit AfD vote fraud. Both accounts use almost identical syntax. Both accounts have made no contribution to WP at all beyond a single AfD nomination apiece, and repeated strident, thoroughly unconvincing denials of their involvement in disruptive behaviour and account abuse. In my opinion a permanent block should be applied. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Onecanadasquarebishopsgate's accusation that User:160.39.63.175 was a "sockpuppet" is nonsense, because the revision history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominion of Melchizedek clearly states that Akc2114 only wasn't signed in properly when he saved his comment (diff). Adam233 (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • Quacks like a duck. Both accounts blocked indef. — Coren (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Adam233&oldid=1142565744"