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

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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Charlene 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Reposted article Cyrus Robinson created originally as Cyrus robinson by Afcyrus. After new article was speedily deleted per G4, this account re-created it again.

After addition by Twinkle (the first time I've used it to report a possible sock), I think Afcyrus is the puppeteer and Imnotfamous is the sock, but perhaps it's six of one and half-dozen of the other. --Charlene 21:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sock?!

My IP is in Virginia, Imnotfamous' IP is in Kansas! How can I be a "sockpuppet"?! Imnotfamous is a former co-worker who is aware of my contributions to digital forensics! What happened to the "good faith" and "edit boldly" policies of wikipedia? The claim is false. I posted originally for Imnotfamous because she did not have an account. Apparently, I did a terrible job and did not list any relevant information (I was just beginning with early life/family info). I was recommended for deletion. That's fair. Imnotfamous decided to post the article ON HER OWN, and did so. She was immediately sent for speedy deletion bcecause someone called her a sock of my account, which is false, just because there is a reasonable claim for the article that was objected.Afcyrus 16:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not deleted because of suspected sockpuppetry. It was deleted because of a Wikipedia policy that allows speedy deletion of recreated articles that do not differ substantially from the article that was deleted. BassoProfundo 16:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, however, charlene used the deletion and the reposting as grounds for claiming sockpuppetry, so naturally my response would be a rebuttal to that claim.Afcyrus 16:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for the authenticity of Afcyrus's story. I know him in person through his work, and I know of the other person. This was definitely two different submitters under two different accounts, both who were new to wikipedia, and had previously planned on making the page. While I can't comment on the notability of the original page, this is definitely not a sockpuppet. Rurik 22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT: While possibly not technically a sockpuppet, see WP:MEAT. — ERcheck (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment WP:MEAT also does not apply. I did not ask her to create an account. She asked me to begin an article for her so that she could complete it once she had created an account.Afcyrus 05:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is a gray area, a little close to the edge of a WP:MEAT violation - but I think we can let it slide, in the spirit of not biting newcomers, so long as Afcyrus and Imnotfamous are careful, from here on out, not to double-vote or tag-team-edit, as they are connected in real life. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---