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.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

–Llama man^{sign here} 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

• Bowsy's account was created four minutes after Henchman 2000.

  We share a computer so we have to take turns. Bowsy 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Replied on user's talk page. –Llama man^{sign here} 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is virtually indentical layout to both userpages (Same welcome message, almost same userboxes, etc.).
• The accounts contribute around the same time (Usually, Bowsy makes a few edits, then Henchman a little while later).

As I said, we share a computer. Bowsy 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bowsy was the sole "delete" !voter at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, which Henchman nominated, and !voted delete for practically the same reason as the nom.

  Aren't you not supposed to vote on your own mds? And what is wrong with taking the minority side? Bowsy 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Replied on user's talk page. –Llama man^{sign here} 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This evidence is a lie. If you check the debate, you will find that there are TWO delete !votes. Bowsy 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They both strongly support the addition of a list of minigames in the Mario Party articles and that "WP:CRUFT is getting out of control", and have been in edit wars with me to achieve that. –Llama man^{sign here} 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean they were in edit wars with you? I retired when it got unreasonable and tried to come to a civil conclusion. Henchman, however continued to add it back and was uncivil when doing so. Bowsy 09:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Hmm, I would note that Bowsy's !vote at the MFD comes just 4 minutes after Henchman 2000's nomination which seems really quick. Metros232 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly they both also have had issues with fair use images on their user pages User_talk:Henchman_2000#Userpage and User_talk:Metros232#You_vandalised_MY_User_Page.21. This accusation of vandalism without cause seems to be similar to Henchman 2000's false accusations. Metros232 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros232 has been blocked as a sockpuppet and vandal admin. He also waltzed in and ripped out my image. This is inappropriate as Prodego kindly asked Henchman to remove his, so I had a reason to call it vandalism. Bowsy 19:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a sockpuppet and a vandal? And have been blocked as such? What? Here's my block log. Metros232 19:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you had been. It says on your talk page history. Bowsy 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been tagged as such by vandals. If you look at the people who have tagged me as a vandal and sockpuppet, they are all vandals and sockpuppets themselves, they're just pissed at me for finding them out and are retaliating. Metros232 14:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, perhaps I am being nieve (which TRUST me happens alot!) but is it possible that there is two wikipedians living in the same household? I mean, personally, I am the only Wikipedian in my household but alot of times I have signed up for services right after a family member. For example, when my mom and I signed up to sell books on a website, we signed up for our accounts like five minutes in advance. I don't quite know what to make of the other evidence, I was just commenting on that one. Please don't think I'm knocking anybody ya'll all cool in my book ;-) Mystify85JEC 21:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's possible. As I have already explained, Henchman and myself share a computer. Bowsy 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I believe you that you are sharing a computer. It seemed likely at first that you were sockpuppets, but that likeliness has decreased in my opinion. –Llama man^{sign here} 20:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read Llama man's comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive176#Sockpuppetry and Wikipedia:editor review/Bowsy. Bowsy 14:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can also claim protection from the 100-edit rule presented in WP:SOCK. It states that if the accounts are in an edit conflict on the same side and have made over 100 edits, it can be safely assumed they aren't sockpuppets. Was the full policy read before this case was launched? Bowsy 19:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made 102 edits before your first revert to a Mario Party article; Henchman made 75 before his comment on my talk page. The edits before your 100th were mostly to the Mario Party articles; not "general" participation as the policy states. Of course, I'm not saying your a sockpuppet, just that I did read the policy completely. –Llama man 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "claiming protection" schtick? The policy says one possible rule of thumb is the so-called 100-edit rule. That appears s in the "When questions arise" section, as advice to someone trying to figure out (essentially) whether to report an account as a sock puppet. Having more than 100 edits in no way provides a safe harbor. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read the comments by Llama man on the pages I gave links to, you will see that he is admitting to tagging to legitamate users. Bowsy 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what John is saying; rather, he is saying that simply stating that having over 100 edits is not an excuse for not being a sockpuppet. –Llama man 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

I'm closing this investigation because WP:AGF and in light of everything stated here, these are 2 separate individuals using 1 computer... however, that being the case you both need to be careful about meatpuppetry; soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community. Both of you need to keep that in mind. I don't see any evidence right now that you've worked together to circumvent WP:3RR or other policies, but in light of the fact that you share a computer I think it would be reasonable that if you did combine for 4 reverts on a content conflict that you would both be blocked for a 3RR violation. Again, I'm simply stating this as a caution to you both.--Isotope23 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]