User talk:Scythre/Sockpuppet discussion

The user has taken credit for an edit made well before they were an editor. Also, see the similarities in their userboxes on their user pages, User:Scythre and [[1]]. Aspects (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I formerly used the account Flashflash; and now have created this account. None have been used for vandalism, so I don't see a problem? I created a new account because of all the stuff that was going on over at Flashflash; and now do not use that account, instead using this one. Isnt there a place that I can request that Flashflash; be deleted? I swear I've seen one.

Scythre^Talk_Contribs 15:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SOCK: 'A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policies. For a variety of reasons, some Wikipedians create one or more alternative accounts. An alternative account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has an account. In such cases, the account with the longest history and most edits is normally assumed to be the main account.'

This account or the Flashflash; account hasn't been used for vandalism; feel free to shut down Flashflash;, I have no need of that account anymore. The reason I created this account was because I wanted a fresh start to Wikipedia and to start over and learn some of the basics; look in the Logs: User creation logs and there's established users creating numerous accounts for themselves; maybe for archival purposes, maybe for other things, but my point is that no account has been used for vandalism, so I shouldnt be blocked. As I said before, feel free to delete Flashflash;, I have no need of that account anymore. --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The reversion you made to Ryan Seacrest in my opinion seemed a deceptive practice to use two different accounts to violate the rules about edit warring. When I looked at both accounts' contributions I noticed Flashflash; ended right about the time Scythre started with no note to show they were the same person, which looks awfully suspicious in my opinion. Then looking at the userboxes on both accounts verified to me that they were the same person.

I assume you want to have a Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Clean start under a new name, but with this edit [2] it says you are leaving Wikipedia and yet less than two hours later you start editing under another account also seems suspicious in my opinion.

I honestly do not know if there is a place where you can delete Flashflash; but you might want to start at "right to vanish." Aspects (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to edit warr at all; I added the headings because I thought it made the article clearer and neater. I was leaving Wikipedia because of a user, now confirmed to be a sockpuppet, giving me grief; once he was banned and I was told about this, I made my account back into its normal state. I am sure I've seen a page where you can request for your username to be deleted; anyway, I'm sorry, I have meant for no vandalism or edit warring on any accounts; I created a new one because I did not want to continue editing under the Flashflash; guise and wanted to start all over again and learn the basics. I know you'll probably come back with 'You could've changed your name' but I wanted to start a whole new account, just so I can well and truly get to know Wikipedia. Sorry again, Scythre^Talk_Contribs 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This proves that The user wanted to leave his previous ID .He wants another chance to prove himself as a good wikipedian I think he should be provided this chance.As far as I know he has not been disruptive.Thisimproves the article and makes it better (According to my limited knowledge)--Notedgrant (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me like a fairly clear cut case of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Clean start under a new name. The edit in question doesn't seem abusive. I believe our friend here just wanted a new name with a new history after his bad experience. That's understandable. If it would assuage concern, perhaps Scythre would agree to a quick CheckUser to ensure no abuse has occurred. As long as Flashflash; isn't ever used to edit again, or becomes a WP:SOCK#LEGIT, no harm, no foul. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion was solicited by Scythre, so it might not be 100% neutral, but I'll give it. I've actually had run-ins with Flashflash before, criticizing his behavior in two separate instances, and I was unaware this was him until just now, so I don't think I can be considered "in his corner" by any means.

IMHO, this skirted close to the boundary of violating WP:SOCK, and might have gone a little over it, but can be solved relatively painlessly. As noted by Aspect above, and Scythre's own words, it seems this was done in an attempt at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Clean start under a new name. However, there was a one day overlap between the beginning of Scythre and the end of Flashflash (which could probably be overlooked if there was no overlap in pages edited), and as pointed out above, there's this from the link above: "...you should not turn up on a page User:A used to edit to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B, while denying any connection to User:A, particularly if the edits are contentious."

That said, your use of "i did explain" in an edit summary is either evidence you weren't trying to hide anything, or that you're really bad at subterfuge.

May I suggest:

• A note on your user page indicating that you previously edited as Flashflash; since you do have a block log, I think a link of some kind is needed to avoid accusations of attempting to avoid scrutiny.
• Removal of this suspected sockpuppet tag, as having been valid, but outlived it's usefulness except as an unhelpful scarlet letter
• No blocks, no checkuser (minimal infractions)
• An acknowledgment from you (Scythre) that this was suboptimal behavior, and that you realize if it happens again and you're found out, it could very well lead to blocking.
• While you're at it, you might consider a less contentious editing philosophy, but that has little to do with this, and I throw it in only because I think it would make your time here more pleasant, for you and others.

Anyway, that's my two cents. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Floquenbeam's suggestions seem fair, and I second them. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I third them, along with Vicenarian's comments. I don't see that any real harm has been done and hopefully Scythre has learnt an important lesson. VI ^talk 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all those comments and will take into consideration what everyone has said, as well as doing what Floquenbeam suggested. Should I go ahead and do this or wait for Aspects to reply? They are very slow on replying by the way. --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 22:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems that I came a little late to the gathering, but after reading everyone's opinions, I must say that I agree explicitly with Vicenarian, and with most of what Floquenbeam says. Not much help, I know, but I don't think that you were intending to be disruptive, you just wanted a fresh start. So, tag Flash as your former acct. Best, →javért ^chat 22:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)