Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smatprt/Archive
Smatprt
- Smatprt (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
01 July 2014
[edit]- Suspected sockpuppets
- FatGuySeven (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Smatprt is indefinitely topic banned from SAQ issues diff.
FatGuySeven is a single-purpose account who began editing SAQ topics in 22 May 2014. Their first edit diff was the next after an edit to the same article by Smatprt. Smatprt made seven more edits in the following week, but has not edited since, while FatGuySeven now has over 140 edits.
In the few weeks since they started editing, FatGuySeven has reopened SAQ issues that had been settled by WP:ARBSAQ, has tried to open cases on two noticeboards, and is evidently planning to continue.
- ANI case closed
- DRN case closed
- FatGuySeven 12:23, 1 July 2014 Question about DR closing: new section
Smatprt and FatGuySeven both display an inordinate concern and misunderstanding of the policy on neutral language:
- Smatprt 23:16, 6 November 2011 responses to Tom.
- Smatprt 20:39, 9 November 2011 Delia didn't make a claim (see WP:AVOID, she made presented a theory. Removing weasel word "cryptic"
- Smatprt 23:31, 6 November 2011 As per WP:AVOID, as detailed on Talk page.
- Smatprt 23:28, 20 May 2014 Replace "claim" with "believe" as per WP:CLAIM
- FatGuy Seven 22:58, 22 June 2014 "speculating" is not a neutral word. Substituting "wrote" which is as neutral as it gets.
- FatGuySeven 15:13, 4 June 2014 Alleged isn't very neutral, so I replaced with Possible
They make similar edits using similar language on the same article:
- Smatprt 04:37, 6 November 2011 minor word changes. "Claims" is WP:AVOID, "Typically" changed to "Many", "Coded assertions" to "literary allusions."
- Smatprt 23:31, 6 November 2011 (2 consecutive edits) As per WP:AVOID, as detailed on Talk page.
- FatGuySeven 14:29, 12 June 2014 I updated the history somewhat, based on Churchill.
Both use "cuz":
- Smatprt 14:56, 11 October 2010 I'm really sorry cuz I want to respond and participate
- FatGuySeven 03:34, 29 June 2014 It took about 20 minutes cuz I kept getting interrupted
Both use "darn" in relation to formatting:
- Smatprt 04:00, 6 November 2011 darn formatting
- FatGuySeven 06:22, 10 June 2014 Darn cut and paste
Both refer to "opinion stated as fact" in their edit summaries and discussions:
- Smatprt 22:40, 2 April 2013 removing opinion stated as fact. This paragraph is about the nature of evidence, not stating conclusions.
- Smatprt 07:23, 14 November 2011 removing unsupported speculation, attributing opinion stated as fact and 23:51, 6 November 2011 inline attribution for opinion stated as fact
- FatGuySeven 08:38, 26 June 2014 Removing some opinions being stated as facts
- FatFuySeven 05:44, 27 June 2014 Stating opinion as fact. Misstating scholarly consensus.
Both can use long edit summaries with "happy to ... but":
- Smatprt 15:41, 29 January 2012 attempting to explain why these four are featured here. Right now it reads like these are just 4 of 70 equal candidates. Happy to hear other approaches to this, but it does need explaining.
- Smatprt 17:00, 21 May 2014 Can you please review WP:Words to Avoid, concerning the non-neutral use of "claim"? Happy to consider other wording, but the guideline is pretty clear.
- FatGuySeven 08:02, 26 June 2014 See talk page. Happy to collaborate but permission to edit is not required. Especially after being called a liar. Looking at reliable source policy. These are all varied academic opinions and should say do. They are being portrayed as facts. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments by other users
[edit]Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]- Not only is the behavioural evidence compelling (thank you for the very detailed evidence Tom Reedy), the technical data
confirms that Smatprt (talk · contribs) is using the FatGuySeven (talk · contribs) account to get around their topic ban.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC) - Also Confirmed is Linksey (talk · contribs).--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Closing, as Bishonen has indeffed the socks and blocked the master.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)