Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walm14/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Walm14

Walm14 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

27 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

The article Chagrin Valley Times was created by Walm14, who had a COI with the article subject, which they then (admittedly) tried to distance themselves from by renaming their account from SocialmediaCVT.

The Mkwal914 account was created after SocialmediaCVT received a soft block for username violation. Walm14 was warned about using multiple accounts, and was told to stick to just one account by User:Bonadea. [1]

They had said that they had misunderstood the requirements, and were doing both the things that the soft block temp had suggested. However, the creation of this third account, Delta8563, today, and that users first edit, is now heading into problem territory. As often ends up on block templates (or something similar), "It is one thing to do something that violates policy because you weren't aware of the policy at the time, but it is another thing entirely to continue to do so after being warned." And in this case, that applies to both socking, and removing the COI template [2].

I am happy to clarify this further if needed, though it is fairly obvious with even a cursory look at the history of the Chagrin Valley Times page.

@Bonadea:, alerting to this SPI.

I don't think CU will be needed, as none of the accounts seem to have slept at all. Mako001 (C)  (T) (The Alternate Mako) 06:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkwal914: The problem here is not so much the COI issue, that isn't why I opened this SPI (that would belong at COIN). I opened this SPI because, after receiving a warning about sockpuppetry for creating the account you are using currently, and acknowledging that warning, you went ahead and created a third account, Delta8563. As I said above, it is one thing to mistakenly violate policy because you weren't aware of it, but it is another thing entirely to violate it again, after being made aware of it. Also please sign your name with four tildes "~~~~". Mako001 (C)  (T) (The Alternate Mako) 08:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well the account has been retired and requested a vanish but the problem for me IS the COI because there isn’t one.Mkwal914 (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this absolutely clear, (in all due respect) no one gives a hoot about the COI here. The issue is sockpuppetry, and you stand little to no chance of vanishing your sockpuppet, (especially when it has a recent SPI template in its talk history) so you know what to expect. By the way, if you continue to bring up arguments about if you do or don't have a COI here, it will be considered disruption,as you are going off the topic of sockpuppetry, and will be dealt with accordingly. Mako001 (C)  (T) (The Alternate Mako) 09:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delta8563 is what this SPI is really about, not any of the others, even though they are listed, which only serves to give background to the Delta8563 accounts actions. I find it difficult to believe that you had "forgotten" (or didn't know) about the ability to rename an account, as you had done exactly that back earlier this month, renaming SocialmediaCVT to Walm14. The fact that your first action with the Delta8563 account was to remove the COI template from the page (something you had been warned about on at least one occasion previously), speaks volumes, and places Delta8563 squarely in the category of illegitimate alternative accounts. Also, as far as I have seen, you still haven't addressed why Delta8563's very first edit was to remove that COI template. If you have a good explanation for why that was the case, I would be glad to hear it. Mako001 (C)  (T) (The Alternate Mako) 07:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spicy: Fair enough. Also, might I suggest that they be disallowed from renaming again? After all, they have effectively said that there will not be any need to again. Mako001 (C)  (T) (The Alternate Mako) 11:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. @bonadea you have been told at least a dozen times that there is no paid affiliation and that it was created under that email because I asked if I could create a wiki page and they told me to do it under that. So please stop ignoring when I ask you how to remove the coi and only replying when I try to do it myself.Venusrising16 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the mistake. It won’t happen again, I’m just very confused as to how I’m supposed to declare an affiliation when I’m not affiliated or being paid and only doing it on their behalf without any bias or influence from the company. Venusrising16 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have retired the Delta8563 page and requested a vanish. Feel free to block it if you’d like. Venusrising16 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi so I spoke with a live chat help editor to understand this further and explain the situation to clarify some things. They were very kind and helpful, which I must say, I have not experienced on this page or my talk page after asking for help or instruction on how to resolve the conflicts on the page. So the full list of accounts used while trying to navigate were:

-SocialMediaCVT (explanation: I am not being paid for this. I know an employee there and I'd been told they were interested in expanding their online presence. I was looking up news in the area and came across a wikipedia page for a company that turned out to be a competitor--the Chagrin Solon Sun--a subsect of Sun newspapers. Therefore, I thought the Chagrin Valley Times might also qualify for a page. I brought it up to my acquaintances at the company and they offered that email. I didn't know until after I created the account that a conflict of interest would be assumed, but I fully understand why it was. I spoke to the first editor who flagged it and they said to create a new username. I then created the second one.)

-Walm14 (explanation: At the time, I did not realize that they meant not a whole new account, but rather a username change request. Another editor explained that to me and I went back to the socialmediacvt one and was renamed to mkwal914).

-mkwal914 (explanation: I realized that this was a bit too identifying and I'd observed that all of the editors I talked to had generic usernames. I thought it best to be like them, as I've been taking cues and advice from more experienced editors while learning how to do this. I have a few more pages in mind that I'd like to submit to articles for creation so this was kind of a trial run, if you will.)

-delta9653 (explanation: I truly had forgotten about the ability to request a username change and didn't think of it until delta8653 was flagged. I also thought that maybe with a more generic username, it would be more acceptable to not come across as a conflict. Once it was flagged, I requested a username change and retired the account immediately. I also requested a vanish but I understand if that's not possible.)

-venusrising16 (explanation: this is my final username. I believe it does not give out any personal information and I requested it after remembering that a rename could be requested.)

As for venusrising16, I can fully operate on that alone and didn't really have an intention to operate on more than one account. I just wanted to be more secure from personal information and I wanted to distance myself from the assumption of affiliation as much as possible. I think this username does that. Again, I'm not being paid, I'm not receiving any incentive and I didn't mean anything malicious behind it. It won't happen again. And I appreciate the live help section for explaining it further to me. Venusrising16 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • All of this business with accounts and renames and whatnot is very confusing. I'm going to dig deep into my reserve of WP:AGF and say that since Venusrising16 has explained their use of multiple accounts, there is no serious violation of the sockpuppetry policy here. I am however concerned that running three accounts may confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions (see WP:SCRUTINY) even if that is not the user's intention. I also have concerns about Venusrising16's edits more generally although that's not strictly in scope for SPI.
    Since Venusrising16 has expressed above that they intend to use only this account, and that admins can Feel free to block [Delta8653] if you’d like, Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - please indefinitely soft-block Walm14 and Delta8653 to prevent any further confusion, while allowing Venusrising16 to continue editing from this account.
    Venusrising16: please note that any further use of multiple accounts will likely be treated more harshly, and that if you were asked to create the page [3] you do have a conflict of interest and should follow the relevant guidelines, which include making edit requests on the talk page and not editing the article directly. Edits like this [4] are disruptive and will likely lead to a block if they continue. I also suggest you disclose your previous accounts on your user page to minimize confusion and prevent future allegations of sockpuppetry. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note: Requested actions completed -- TNT (talk • she/her) 13:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, closing. Spicy (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Walm14/Archive&oldid=1062818376"