Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits

message: I'm unsure how one contributes to this case, but having compared many of the diffs supplied with Vintagekits hundreds of edits I would be very surprised indeed in VK was a master puppeteer.  His edits are littered with spelling and grammatical errors - those by his supposed sockpuppetts have the odd typo but are not.  They also use a different vocabulary.  In short the editors don't seem to have the same DNA in their writings.  Like VK I too am incapable of spelling and understanding English grammar - hence I cannot suddenly edit without mistakes when I choose to, if I could I would edit in that fashion all the time as I suspect would VK.
Vintagekits has a lot of faults (sorry VK but you have) many of them he would probably admit too, he is hot headed, arrogant and convinced he is always right - he seldom listens to other people's views and is even more seldom swayed by them - and some of his political views I suspect are controversial in Britain.  Having said that - I quite like him!  He has done some very good and valuable  work on the encyclopedia and has given no evidence that he is dishonest or even devious.  Using sockpuppets to alter opinion or votes on Wikipedia is in my view about as low as it gets, I think to do so would break VKs own code of conduct.  Check User will hopefully verify this (unless he is at an educational establishment - with many editing from the same encyclopedia) and even then I would tend to think him innocent as charged and give him the benefeit of the doubt. Giano 10:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me Giano, evidence suggests it is more a case of meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh God, this shows my ignorance or Wikipedia's terms can you explain to me the difference, I am notoriously thick about these things. Giano 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh I know what a sockpuppet is - it is a meatpuppet is I'm unsure - what exactly constitutes a meatpuppet and how does one acquire one? Giano 21:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was meaning the meatpuppet section of that article, but I suppose it is a bit complicated. Basically, a meatpuppet is a user account belonging to a separate person (suspected to be Maplecelt etc. in this case), acting on behalf of the original person (suspected to be Vintagekits) and used as sockpuppets are - e.g. to influence the outcome of AfD debates. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So what you are saying is that Vintagekits has another genuine editor in his pocket who is doing his bidding - yes? Giano 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not what you would call a genuine editor. An example would be asking someone else on a messageboard to create or use an already existing account on Wikipedia for the purpose of rigging votes. And Vintagekits has not been found guilty of doing this as of yet. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Giano, if you have been soliciting AfD on various messageboards for the purpose of !vote-stacking, then I would suggest you stop doing so immediately. It is "considered highly inappropriate" behaviour, see WP:SOCK#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. Rockpocket 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find an proven example with diffs and i'll agre with you. Giano 22:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Errr. I'm not accusing you, I'm responding to your admission, above, that appears to suggest you have solicited meatpuppets and/or canvassed for !votes previously. Are you working on the premise that as long as it can't be proven - or if no-one has spotted it before - there is nothing wrong with doing it? Well there is, as per the policy, and I was recommending that you adhere to our policies in future. Rockpocket 23:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Droping a large hint in a very public place that a certain page is in such and such a forum - is just common sense for attracting some more opinions which could go eother way - that is not vote stacking or meatpuppetryGiano 06:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm very bad at explaining these things, I can only point you in the direction of this page and the explanations on it. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *To be quite honest, and with all due respect to Vintagekits - I really don't think he is a Machiavelli look at his responses when challenged - he is completely upfront - mouth before brain and probably on occasions regrets it afterwards, he has never learnt when to shut up for his own good - he has not the patience or the temperament to plot and control - his sort is completely "what you see is what you get".  I suspect he is guilty of many things but the things he is charged with here - No, I don't think so - too out of character - Oh he thinks about it - but to do it and do it so well, just look at the difference in styles - these editors are very different.  VK would have to be a  Svengali and machiavelli combined to pull it off with so many.  No the truth is he just sometimes says things that strike a chord with editors with the same beliefs - no more no less. Giano 22:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vintagekit's DNA