Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwayneflanders/Archive

Dwayneflanders

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

Report date September 13 2009, 06:36 (UTC)[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Turian

Basically, Dwayneflanders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was an account created over a year. Everything seemed fine until today. The first weird behavior occurred on the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback page; Dwayneflanders requested and was declined. But, he removed the request and continued to be disruptive once it was put back. He was declined again. Then, I noticed he had gone on to make an outlandish RfA. Not too long after, Bspurrell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) commented on the RfA, saying that he supported him (note, it was 5 minutes after the account was created). If you look at Bspurrell's page, you will notice that Dwayneflanders has edited it multiple times, claiming that they are cousins. It is not out of the ordinary for this to happen, but this activity is beyond the realms of ludicrousness. Also a quick look at this version of Dwayneflander's page and this version of Bspurrel's page makes it nearly obvious; however, checkuser should be performed as a precautionary measure. –túrian^patois 06:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Were I a clerk, I would decline this CU request, on grounds of WP:QUACK. Wikimedia takes its editors' privacy very seriously, and the issue of vote-stacking isn't really a problem, with only one sock. It would make no difference whether this is a sock or is really his cousin, as were it his cousin, he would probably be entrapped by WP:MEAT. But I'm not a clerk, and I invite other users to respond. Intelligentsium 16:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree for four reasons: 1) there is only one alleged sock; 2) Dwayneflanders' RfA isn't going to pass anyway; 3) the alleged sock didn't even !vote; 4) the evidence against Dwayneflanders makes it pretty certain it's at least meatpuppetry. If we were talking about an RfA that actually had a chance of passing, and a user creating 15 accounts and then they all !voted support, then I would support a CU. But this just seems unnecessary. Xenon54 / talk / 17:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you want to admonish someone with just your intuition? Fair enough... –túrian^patois 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: C + F (Vote stacking affecting outcome and another reason)

Current status –

Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below. (I shouldn't wait until voting closes as it involved the "potential" admin) Requested by –túrian^patois 06:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Clerk endorsed I'm going to assume good faith and assume this is his cousin. However, I'm going to let CheckUser decide whether or not that's true. MuZemike 16:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I looked at this independently the other day. I don't know about it being his cousin, but Confirmed. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Administrator note Indefinitely blocked and tagged. MuZemike 15:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.