Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HelloAnnyong (talk | contribs) at 13:39, 6 January 2011 (→‎Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: clarify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

GoldDragon

GoldDragon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
05 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This was raised at WP:ANI#Stonewalling by User:Deleting Unnecessary Words. They pointed out some edits where the accounts restore edits that had been originally made by one of the other accounts and reverted. There is substantial overlap in the articles edited, and the times of editing are nearly identical. Intersection between SubcommandanteM and GoldDragon:[1]; MaxForce and GoldDragon:[2]; SubcommandanteM and MaxForce:[3] Wikichecker reports:[4][5][6] Fences&Windows 22:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sudden reappearance of User:Deleting Unnecessary Words, who gave this lead, is odd, thinking about it. I am minded to accept the argument that this was not done with any intent to sockpuppet, though it gave that impression. Could they now be declared as alternate accounts? Undeclared alt accounts can be used, but not to avoid scrutiny, and not in the same area of editing. Seek help if being hounded by another user. Fences&Windows 02:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

The other accounts came about because I was consistently being followed by an anon user, 69.159.27.XXX, who kept reverting my edits and never actually adding anything constructively to an article. As that anon user refused to sign up and kept following GoldDragon, I created the other accounts to try to throw that anon off.

However, I have never used these multiple accounts to create the perception of different users during an active article dispute, whether to skirt the 3RR or manipulate votes. While I may have edited the same article with different accounts, this was not in any short period of time (once I realized that the other editors rejected the edit due to content and not because of GoldDragon, I backed off). I have not overlapped accounts with an article recently unless it was inadvertent. In particular, I've never used multiple accounts in any disputes against User:Viriditas, therefore that user had no good reason to request an SPI investigation. GoldDragon (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to go off on a tangent but User:Deleting Unnecessary Words's sudden reappearance [7] is really surprising, as I've never had any disputes with that user at all. As for scrutiny, as certain users have reverted my edits without bothering to read the content, that was why I tried an alt account a long time ago. GoldDragon (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have had dealings with both of these accounts in the last week. Looking back, I should have known by the fact that both were edit warring with the same IP, at the same time, but I thought I was dealing with two different editors. GoldDragon claims above that "I created the other accounts to try to throw that anon off." Is this a legitimate way to edit wikipedia? It seems to me that I and quite posibly other editors were duped into thinking we were dealing with two people, when the whole time, it was GoldDragon with multiple accounts. As a legitimate editor trying to help the project, I know that editing can be frustrating at times, but why do we have to put up with stuff like this, that just makes the whole proces even more frustrating? It may not have been GoldDragon's intention to trick anyone other than an IP that he felt was harassing him, but there has to be a better way to deal with the problem than resorting to using sockpuppets. Cmr08 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is getting into too much detail for this discussion, but above GoldDragon mentions that he never used the accounts to give the perception of different users. If it turns out that that User:SubcommandanteM is indeed GoldDragon, this edit summary may contridict the above statement. dif Cmr08 (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most troubling and telling aspect of this case is GoldDragon's statement above (emphasis added): "I have not overlapped accounts with an article recently". Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

GoldDragon and MaxForce are  Confirmed. SubcommandanteM is  Stale; that will need to be determined solely on behavioral evidence. –MuZemike 22:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note So I've indef blocked and tagged the sockpuppet, and I've blocked GoldDragon for 2 weeks for sockpuppeting. I too find the comments about not socking recently to be troubling. As to the stale account, I've tagged it as being a possible sock, but I'm not going to block it just yet. However, feel free to relist if it becomes active again. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GoldDragon&oldid=406276897"