Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/69dressings/Archive

Report date September 28 2009, 23:41 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Primarily my concern is the apparent use of sockpuppets in a deletion debate. is a relatively new user with the potential to become a valued contributor, but this sort of thing clearly isn't on. PC78 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by PC78
 * With this edit, blanked a substantial portion of Files for deletion/2009 September 26 while adding a comment to Files for deletion/2009 September 26. In the comment the IP agrees with an earlier comment s/he made while referring to her/himself in the third person. Thirteen minutes later, the signature on this comment was changed by  in this edit.
 * made a number of changes to Thirst (2009 film) in these three edits. I undid a lot of these changes because they were contrary to relevant policies and guidelines. restored many of these changes in this edit (marked as minor with a misleading edit summary) which I have again reverted for the same reason.
 * Contributions made by, which only go back as far as 26 September, were made largely to the same pages as over the same period.

Sockpuppetry? But I don't even write like that. It wasn't me who wrote that but someone knew. Anyways you can delete the DVD cover if you want, cause I guess it goes against your rules. 69dressings (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * So you're saying that you're not, it's just someone you know (or did you mean "someone new")? Either way, that doesn't explain this edit. PC78 (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was on a friends computer when I made those edits, cause I could not sign in. My friend saw the Thirst movie not too long ago and I told them about your posts. They decided to write a comment under the same IP address. Then you commented then I commented. I should have realized that this would be a problem, but I wasn't thinking really we were just having a bit of fun I guess you could say. My friend doesn't have an account on Wikipedia. So we just used the same IP address. Then I changed the IP address to my name. I should have wrote a nickname or something beside it. Anyways, it doesn't matter now the DVD cover will be deleted, yes? :) 69dressings (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * I don't think there is any doubt that these two are the same person. There is the change of signature, which effectively announces that they are the same person, and there is also striking similarity in editing history: only one of 99.243.97.117's edits are to a page not edited by 69dressings, and the edits are commonly identical or very similar, as in this pair of edits, , and in this pair , . The only question is whether editing as two different users was abusive. As far as this is concerned the main evidence is this edit, where 99.243.97.117 says "I kind of agree with 99.243.97.117", together with the next edit, where 69dressings changes the signature on the previous edit to 69dressings instead of 99.243.97.117. This was quite clearly an attempt to pretend to be a second user supporting the first one, in other words unambiguous sockpuppetry. The use of the IP to restore 69dressings's reverted edits is more ambiguous, but we have enough evidence anyway, without that. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In light of the explanation given above by 69dressings as to why he/she changed the signature, perhaps we could have a checkuser. It would be interesting to know whether or not the IP address is the one that 69dressings usually uses. Also, if the explanation given above is true, then we have a second user who has repeatedly reverted back to the first user's edits after they have been undone, and has acted together with the first user to write alternating contributions to a deletion discussion (both together at the same computer at the same time). This begins to sound like meatpuppetry. So basically, either the explanation given is true and we have a meatpuppet, or it is a lie and we have a sockpuppet. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Warned User:69dressings not to do it again upon threat of a block. No need for a CheckUser as the behavioral evidence clearly indicates either sock puppetry or meatpuppetry. MuZemike 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions