Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiManOne/Archive

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

26 May 2011

;Suspected sockpuppets

Either attempted impersonation or pure socking. The user explicity CLAIMS to be a reincarnation. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Where, exactly, is he claiming to be a sock of that user? Kuru (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let Jasper answer, but my guess would be this edit: "This user, contrary to the message, is not retired at all. He's just editing under a new username". — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted. Was confused.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Si. That was an unusual reading of that comment, especially considering the personalities involved. Kuru (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)However, this user was being disruptive in other ways, like this threat of violence and shouting here.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I cannot see why this request has been made. All evidence is that Kenatipo is completely unrelated to WikiManOne or to his alternative account BelloWello. That those accounts are related has come out on wikipedia following the block of BelloWello by Jclemens. On his talk page [1] Kenatipo makes it clear that he learnt about these two accounts being the same from a discussion going on at WP:ANI, here. The MfD of Kenatipo's now deleted user page explains why he has an interest in WikiManOne's account: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kenatipo. Also here Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive98#User:Kenatipo. Mathsci (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jasper. It wasn't my intention to make you feel threatened -- it's just an expression, probably from before your time! Kenatipo ^speak! 03:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, the ANI page you linked to used to have WikiManOne's name on it, but now it doesn't. Did you remove it? I haven't found out who did yet; but, I'm not done looking. Kenatipo ^speak! 03:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox evidently thinks that the link between BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WikiManOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has to be hidden. [2] That redaction is not supported in any way by wikipedia policy and I am sure he is well aware of that. Mathsci (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenatipo was involved in a few disputes with WikiManOne and I guess saw that WikiMan's a sockpuppet. He's not a sockpuppet himself. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet isn't quite the right term here, NYyankee. Several admins are aware of wikimanone's new avatar as of April 19. They sure are clumsy, however, about keeping it "secret". I'm no Sherlock, and if I could figure it out, anyone could. Just for the record, I had it figured out before Mathsci spelled it out on the SAU ANI page (now wiped clean by Beeblebrox). All I had to do was look at changes in wm1's userpage and follow the related conversations. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be fair here. There were only two admins with that knowledge, and it was hinted that it was a privacy issue. I was not aware of the identity of his original account when I blocked him in early May. I assumed it was a clean account, which appears to have been a very poor assumption. I should have consulted with the one admin who indicated he was involved, but he was on break. I can assure you, the block would have been different had I known what the previous account was. Kuru (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying a bunch of admins knew the connection on April 19. As you say, it was probably only two at that date. What I was trying to say is that several admins must know the connection now. I figured the link out from reading jclemens talk page where Will Beback starts referring to "BW". BW must be very persuasive with admins off-wiki. I will take a very cynical view and say that the "privacy" issue is a smokescreen and an excuse for a "CLEANSTART" because BW knows how his block log history, if he has to drag it around with him, will cramp his disruptive editing style. I'd also like to point out that the RETIRED tag on wikimanone's page is very misleading because it says the USER is no longer active. It would be less misleading if it said USERNAME or ACCOUNT. I made a notation on the page and was reverted by kubigula, wikimanone's mentor. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk declined So my question is why are we here at this point? -- DQ (t) (e) 11:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drama. Should have been closed out last night; suggest archiving. Kuru (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]