Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Agent Zwei

[edit] Agent Zwei

• Agent Zwei (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 81 with love (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: G.

This request doesn't fit any of the criteria, but I believe a CheckUser is warranted anyway, in view of the circumstances. Agent Zwei (talk · contribs) recently listed 81 with love (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Alabamaboy (talk · contribs) removed the listing, with the edit summary "removing info about Gabrielle DeHart (81 with love. was placed here by a sockpuppet of this supposedly "deceased" editor." Alabamaboy subsequently issued sockpuppetry warnings to 81 with love and Agent Zwei. When I asked Alabamaboy what had aroused his suspicions, he answered: "I was suspicious when I couldn't verify anything about the "death" of this editor, despite having their supposed real name. When I checked the user contributions of the supposedly dead editor, 81 with love (talk · contribs), then checked the brand new account which first mentioned this editor's death (Agent Zwei (talk · contribs)), I discovered that Agent Zwei (talk · contribs)'s account was created just over an hour after 81 with love (talk · contribs)'s last edit. In addition, Agent Zwei (talk · contribs) immediately began editing WNBA article, which 81 with love (talk · contribs) focused on. Per the Duck test, this seemed like a sock puppet."

I believe that a CheckUser may provide some clarity in this. I believe CheckUser is warranted in this, because this dispute is about the possible death of a fellow Wikipedian, and I feel that an accusation of a faked death announcement (which this boils down to) is pretty serious. These may indeed be sockpuppets, but if the two accounts are unrelated and 81 with love hasn't died, this is a sickening attack on a fellow Wikipedian. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like (somewhat innocent) sockpuppetry to me. As Aecis has suggested, a joke of this nature shouldn't earn more than a stern rebuke, and we only have problems if they aren't sockpuppets. I just can't stop thinking to myself: just when you think you've seen everything... YechielMan 01:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Aecis^Brievenbus, I'm not sure what you mean by the "possible ramifications of this are so serious"? This is a case where someone has faked their own death, which has happened before. I take every posting on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians very seriously and always try to track down verifying information. In this case, the evidence easily pointed to a sock puppet. But even if I was wrong, this wouldn't be a "a sickening attack on a fellow Wikipedian" because of WP:AGF. I am making a good faith effort to maintain this page and keep out fake info. I also notice that you're been trying to add info to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians but another editor has been removing the info until verification is provided. I hope you are not attempting to attack me b/c of that through this issue. Anyway, I should add that these fake death reports happen occasionally. In fact, a checkuser just revealed another reported death was fake (See User_talk:Alabamaboy#Victoria for more). --Alabamaboy 11:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood me on one point. The "sickening attack" wasn't directed at you. It is adding a living fellow Wikipedian to WP:RIP that I would find a sickening attack, not removing listings with verifiability issues. I have no problems with anything you've done on this issue, don't worry. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My total apology for the misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing everything up. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. Voice-of-All 02:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)