Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswego

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:LakeOswego

Suspected sockpuppeteer

LakeOswego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Wildad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Girardjl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Saucy tin1331 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Since the opening of the deletion review, here's a few more: Truth9898 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Upsidedownpiano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Theonome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

— Scientizzle 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Lake Oswego (a pretty new account) and a cadre of WP:SPAs (4 IPs & 10 new accounts) all voted keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination). Others continually recreated G. Edward Griffin following the AfD closure (now salted). Lake Oswego recreated Edward Griffin, too (now also salted). The situation resulted in an AN thread permalink & an ANI thread permalink. Lake Oswego recreated the article in userspace as well, now in the deleted revisions of User:LakeOswego. LakeOswego seems intent on making a big deal about this (not user page edits and such). — Scientizzle 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The IPs have different WHOIS results, so this may be the work of just a lot of off-wiki canvass meatpuppeting, but it's maybe worth a closer look. Checkuser? — Scientizzle 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editing is all fresh, so checkuser should be able to sort it out. Having a blizzard of single purpose accounts appear is a sign of sock puppetry, but it is not enough to block them. Go for technical confirmation via WP:RFCU. The reason would be code 'D' and you should link to the closed AFD, and also to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswego as the evidence. :D Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LakeOswego now open. — Scientizzle 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP this checkuser request immediately! According to WP:RFCU "Vote fraud where the possible sockpuppet votes do not affect the outcome of the vote" is an "unacceptable request". The users accused of suckpuppetry voted "keep", but the outcome was "delete". Honor the guidelines! I am NOT a suckpuppet and can well speak for myself. Soon I will include a response to the accusation of suckpuppetry and provide a likely explanation for the "evidence" in a post on Nihonjoe's ^Talk page. If, however, I find that the checkuser request has been conducted, I WILL get a new username for further contributions to wikipedia, because I cannot trust anymore that my privacy is secured. Do you really have to be online 24 hours a day just to prevent people on wikipedia from running amok? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is This A Joke? What kind of response could I possibly have? I am not a sock puppet, nor do I have an alternative account. However, I can't prove a negative. I've been a user here for two years. I'm not someone's robot. I have never communicated with anyone else on this ridiculous list. I came to the page to look for leads to other works by G. Edward Griffin that I was not aware. I found that the page was up for deletion so, I voted to "keep" because I have found the page valuable in the past. That makes me a sockpuppet? Is my vote to keep what is claimed to be evidence justifying this slanderous accusation? It's about to make me an ex-WP user. I demand an apology and that my name be removed from this list immediately. Dicktater (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, really? Three contributions to a deletion debate for a POV-fork in 2006, where you demand formal notice and a right to mediation or arbitration if the debate closes as anything other than keep (it closed as an unambiguous delete); then in September 2007 you made your first mainspace edit, inserting a section about "false claims" made by a subject in a biographical article, sourced from YouTube; then on Feb 23 this year you took part in the deletion debate for G. Edward Griffin. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that these contributions would be no loss to the project, I'm afraid, so your threat is somewhat hollow. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:LakeOswego, Is it a joke, Are they really clamming that all these users are me? Each IP is form different country!, (74.128.181.67, 65.89.98.17, 216.126.104.68, 189.164.156.182) so just think about it, if I am really capable to do this, You think I will let someone delete the Article G. Edward Griffin? Just use your common sense—Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeOswego (talk • contribs)

User:Calton, What is your problem with me? Do you hate me?—Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeOswego (talk • contribs)

All I do is mop up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that. --Calton | Talk 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LakeOswego came back Inconclusive. An editor came forward to explain that there had been canvassing, an obvious sock violation. However, the article is deleted, the deletion review is closed, and the single purpose accounts don't seem to be causing further trouble. Essentially, problem solved, no need for further action. Jehochman ^Talk 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]